From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw02.freescale.net (az33egw02.freescale.net [192.88.158.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "az33egw02.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CB65DDED9 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:17:28 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <49EF7B1C.2080105@freescale.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:16:28 -0500 From: Timur Tabi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: removing get_immrbase()?? References: <49EF7B11.2000006@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <49EF7B11.2000006@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Linuxppc-dev Development List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale