On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 04:13:17PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:57:18AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > I'm fine with that, but we just need to have a standard kernel > > userspace interface in addition to something like > > /proc/device-tree/bootreason. Perhaps this can be the default > > implementation for the watchdog dev. Someday when we decide DT is crap > > and have a new boot interface, we'll have people relying on > > /proc/device-tree. I hope to be retired when that happens... > > Anyone who thinks that DT can be replaced in the same way that we made > the mistake with ATAGs would really need their head examined. > > As you point out, removing DT removes the /proc/device-tree/ sub-tree. > Whether we like it or not, that is a userspace API, one which we have > users of already. That pretty much means that we can't remove DT for > existing platforms or any platform we have now converted to DT.
<ok, I'll go there!> ... and for platforms that can also be booted via ACPI? If we have to convert the ACPI tables into a device-tree purely for /proc/device-tree, then we may as well boot with the thing too :) Seriously though, I don't see how we can maintain this directory for ACPI, regardless of whether or not it's ABI. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
