On 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote:

On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:

quoted

On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote:

quoted

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