From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from buildserver.ru.mvista.com (unknown [213.79.90.228]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4856EDE5B8 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:03:29 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:03:23 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Grant Likely Subject: Re: removing get_immrbase()?? Message-ID: <20090423140323.GA24671@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <49EF7B11.2000006@freescale.com> <49EF7B1C.2080105@freescale.com> <282847E1-AE1A-44EF-9D18-AF2884105FA5@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 In-Reply-To: Cc: Scott Wood , Linuxppc-dev Development , Timur Tabi Reply-To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 07:53:11AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > > > >> Scott Wood wrote: > >>> > >>> Timur Tabi wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>      these two are related and seem like we could look for "fsl,cpm2" > >>>> > >>>> That's okay, as long as you don't break compatibility with older > >>>> device trees that don't have that property, unless you can demonstrate > >>>> that these trees would never work with the current kernel anyway. > >>> > >>> All CPM2 device trees should have fsl,cpm2 listed in the compatible of > >>> the CPM node. > >> > >> Yes, but did they always have that compatible field?  I'm concerned > >> about situations where someone updates his kernel but not his device > >> tree.  This is a scenerio that we always need to try to support. > > > > I disagree.  If you update your kernel you should update your device tree > > (thus we have .dts in the kernel tree and not somewhere else). > > Not always possible. The device tree may be 'softer' than firmware, > and easier to update, but it is still firmer than the kernel. That is > why so much effort has been spent to not break compatibility with > older device trees. I'd suggest to deal with this on case-by-case basis. In every MPC8xx and MPC8xxx boards I've seen from Freescale there is absolutely no difference in upgrading kernel or device-tree blob. -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2