From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5E2DDE137 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:33:21 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <282847E1-AE1A-44EF-9D18-AF2884105FA5@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala To: Timur Tabi In-Reply-To: <49EF7B1C.2080105@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: removing get_immrbase()?? Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:31:10 -0500 References: <49EF7B11.2000006@freescale.com> <49EF7B1C.2080105@freescale.com> Cc: Scott Wood , Linuxppc-dev Development List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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