Re: removing get_immrbase()??

From: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>,
	Linuxppc-dev Development <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: removing get_immrbase()??
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:31:10 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <282847E1-AE1A-44EF-9D18-AF2884105FA5@kernel.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49EF7B1C.2080105@freescale.com>

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).

- k