On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:03:44AM +0900, Inki Dae wrote:
> 2012/9/25 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com>:

> > Aren't DT bindings considered as an ABI, and required to be supported more 
> > or
> > less forever ? If you merge this DT binding you'll have to keep supporting 
> > it.
> > That's why DT bindings should not be rushed in.

> is ABI required for DT binding?  I know DT binding parses just lcd
> timing data from device tree file so ABI isn't needed. but when it
> comes to DT, I'm novice yet so there may be my missing point. could
> you tell me why DT bindings are considered as an ABI? if there is my
> missing point, will consider it again.

It's supposed to be possible to ship a DT with a board and then boot any
OS or OS version on the board.  If the meaning of the DT keeps changing
then this becomes impossible, you need to keep changing the DT when you
change the thing that parses it (rendering the whole exercise pointless).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to