On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Brian Norris <computersforpe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 01:33:27PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Brian Norris >> <computersforpe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Olof has given good advice on your DT binding and has (slowly) been >> > responding to other requests for DT review that make it to his list. I >> > see that he hasn't followed up on your changes (this v6), so pinging him >> > (as you did) is probably the correct approach. But please do recognize >> > that the DT list is very high volume, so it's hard to get good timely >> > responses there. >> >> I am not a DT mainainer, but sometimes when I see a binding that >> appears to be wrong I speak up. In this case, the binding was one of >> those. > > Whoops, my bad. I was deceived by the responses I've seen from you on > other issues (thanks, BTW). In that case, I haven't seen any response > from a proper DT binding maintainer :( > >> So, I have no more objections to it, and I hope you can get a quick >> review from a DT maintainer on the rest of the binding. > > At this point, I'm comfortable going ahead without their ack, since they > obviously don't care/don't have the manpower to review.
No, that is not how we handle device tree bindings. They need to be reviewed, since we are moving over to a model where they will be considered ABI and can't be changed after the fact. We have a long backlog of mostly-unreviewed old bindings that we're going to do a pass through and then lock down, but it would be good to not add to that backlog with newer bindings. In other words, there's a strong desire for actual acks on bindings from those maintainers these days. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
