DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]

On 07/25/2013 11:25 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Stephen Warren [off-list ref] wrote:

...

quoted

On another related topic, something that may be useful for the DT
bindings reviewer team is a basic checklist for new DT bindings.
Something similar to Fedora's package review checklist. Perhaps also
(yet another?) document on a bit of DT philosophy. If this sounds
useful, I could try and take a stab at some basic initial version.

Sounds reasonable. Starting with one of the existing ones instead of
from scratch is a reasonable approach. A checklist and a best
practices doc would come a long way.

Do you have a link to an existing check-list? I know there's plenty of
best practices information out there to build on.

quoted

We also need to decide (or just document) exactly what "describes the
HW" means; see the thread on thermal limits, and consider the extension
of describing hard/absolute thermal limits to describing use-cased base
thermal profiles using the same schema, or not allowing that.

Yes indeed. A basic binding need just specify what the specific
hardware IP is, if the rest of the configuration of the IP can be
determined at runtime through other means (i.e. by autoprobing). It's
stuff beyond that that gets very complicated.

To talk semi-specifics: What about USB PHY tunings for a specific
board,

I was thinking more about the slightly blurry line between representing
HW and representing policy, but the example you gave certainly needs
consideration too.