Re: patch "misc/at25, dt: Improve at25 SPI eeprom device tree bindings." added to char-misc tree

On 09/05/2012 04:33 PM, David Daney wrote:

On 09/05/2012 02:10 PM, gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org wrote:

quoted

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

     misc/at25, dt: Improve at25 SPI eeprom device tree bindings.

It is perhaps obvious that I think the patch should be merged (as I
wrote it and sent it to you).  However, I think there is a bit of
process problem here.  Patches that affect device tree bindings are part
of the de facto kernel ABI, and as such, need proper vetting.  It is my
opinion that neither the original patch, nor this one correcting it,
should have been committed without either Grant or Rob giving an Acked-by.

Ideally, yes. But Grant and I can't possibly keep up with all bindings
for all devices and all architectures. There are others that can vet
bindings to some level. But the other main reviewers of bindings (Arnd
and Olof) also have lots of other things on their plate. We need to find
a way to spread the review out more. To some extent, having common
bindings makes the problem harder. It doesn't matter so much if a
binding for a specific hardware block is poorly done as long as it
uniquely identifies that block. Getting common bindings that work across
all variations of h/w are difficult to get right and not change. We've
been discussing SDHCI bindings off and on for more than a year now.

Obviously, the original binding here referring to a linux header was the
first clue that it wasn't well designed.

Rob

quoted

to my char-misc git tree which can be found at
     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git
in the char-misc-next branch.

The patch will show up in the next release of the linux-next tree
(usually sometime within the next 24 hours during the week.)

The patch will also be merged in the next major kernel release
during the merge window.

If you have any questions about this process, please let me know.


 From d6ae0d578d24303941c1424b049d2cae28277666 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Daney <david.daney-YGCgFSpz5w/QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:03:57 -0700
Subject: misc/at25, dt: Improve at25 SPI eeprom device tree bindings.

Commit 002176db (misc: at25: Parse dt settings) added device tree
bindings the differ significantly in style from the I2C EEPROM
bindings and don't seem well vetted.  Here I deprecate (but still
support) the "at25,*" properties, and add what I hope is a better
alternative.  These new bindings also happen to be deployed in the
field and were previously submitted for consideration here:

https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2012-May/015556.html


The advantages of the new bindings are that they are similar to the
I2C EEPROMs and they don't conflate read-only and the address width
modes in a binary encoded blob.

Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney-YGCgFSpz5w/QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Alexandre Pereira da Silva <redacted>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <redacted>
Cc: Michael Hennerich <redacted>
Cc: Axel Lin <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <redacted>
---
  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/at25.txt | 34 +++++++---
  drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c                      | 83
+++++++++++++++++--------
  2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)

[...]

_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss