On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 03:45:04PM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 12/03/2011 01:22 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
Actually thinking about this some more I think what's concerning me is the documentation as much as anything else - if it was just an internal, unpublished interface of the OMAP core code which happened to use device tree I probably wouldn't have worried about it churning.
Actually it is documented here: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/omap/omap.txt
That's not exactly the point...
In order to move all OMAP drivers to DT - as Benoit already mentioned - we need additional work in DT. At this point of time if we add the DT representation we anyways need to change it as the core will receive the features, and we still need to fall back to hwmod to get the drivers working. As soon as we can migrate away from the hwmod we will do, but having this in place helps us to migrate other parts to DT.
And what I'm saying is that my main concern is that you're publishing documenting a binding which isn't intended to be the the final binding and which there's no intention that anyone should use directly anyway.