On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent >>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented >>> in Linux. >> >> So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should >> not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source >> repository. >> >> Well that's certainly a point of view. >> > Not specifically my argument, really, and nothing new either. But, yes, I do > think that devicetree bindings descriptions should not include implementation > details, especially since those may change over time (as is the case here). >
I fully agree. Many device trees come from outside the kernel (i.e. they are supplied by the system boot environment). Obviously these device trees cannot be changed at the whim of kernel developers, *and* it is perfectly reasonable to think that software other than the Linux kernel will run on this type of system too. So yes, it is really true, device trees are not a Linux kernel private implementation detail, they are really an external ABI that, although documented in the kernel source tree, cannot be changed in incompatible ways as time progresses. David Daney ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
