| Message ID | 1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 06:28:07AM +0100, 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. > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> > Cc: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/as3722.txt | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) Thanks for the fix-up! Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Mark. > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/as3722.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/as3722.txt > index 4f64b2a..0b2a609 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/as3722.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/as3722.txt > @@ -122,8 +122,7 @@ Following are properties of regulator subnode. > > Power-off: > ========= > -AS3722 supports the system power off by turning off all its rail. This > -is provided through pm_power_off. > +AS3722 supports the system power off by turning off all its rails. > The device node should have the following properties to enable this > functionality > ams,system-power-controller: Boolean, to enable the power off functionality > -- > 1.9.1 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
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. Rob
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). Thanks, Guenter
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:21:11PM +0100, 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. Precisely. If nothing else as a general guideline this keeps us honest, and prevents us from embedding arbitrary implementation details into bidnings that cause pain later when we want to change things at either end. There are already otehr users of these bindings, so we can't really claim they're strictly Linux-specific anyhow. > Well that's certainly a point of view. As far as I am aware, it's the point of view shared by the device tree maintainers, and it's been that way for a while. I don't really follow your concern. For one thing were this followed more strictly this file wouldn't need patching at all to correct for this Linux-internal rework... Thanks, Mark.
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
On 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote: > 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. Ah. Existing thing with backstory among the in-crowd, so I'll assume "git subtree" was previously suggested and you had that discussion already and decided against it. Carry on, Rob
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/as3722.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/as3722.txt index 4f64b2a..0b2a609 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/as3722.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/as3722.txt @@ -122,8 +122,7 @@ Following are properties of regulator subnode. Power-off: ========= -AS3722 supports the system power off by turning off all its rail. This -is provided through pm_power_off. +AS3722 supports the system power off by turning off all its rails. The device node should have the following properties to enable this functionality ams,system-power-controller: Boolean, to enable the power off functionality
Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented in Linux. Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> Cc: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/as3722.txt | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)