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 51901DE133 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:03:02 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <49F07509.8030603@freescale.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:02:49 -0500 From: Timur Tabi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Subject: Re: removing get_immrbase()?? References: <49EF7B11.2000006@freescale.com> <49EF7B1C.2080105@freescale.com> <282847E1-AE1A-44EF-9D18-AF2884105FA5@kernel.crashing.org> <49EF8E3A.4060304@freescale.com> <5D0145E3-0A98-429E-8D53-1A8DF4216462@kernel.crashing.org> <20090423022610.GA19376@yookeroo.seuss> <49F066DC.402@freescale.com> <20090423135005.GA18462@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> In-Reply-To: <20090423135005.GA18462@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Scott Wood , Linuxppc-dev Development List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Anton Vorontsov wrote: > And note that most developers are using up-to-date firmwares > (U-Boots), device trees, and kernels. Developers? Yes. End-users? No. Updating U-Boot itself is often unacceptable for end-users. There's also a strong connection between U-Boot and the device tree. That connection gets stronger with every release, as U-Boot makes more and more changes to the device tree before passing it to the kernel. This means that if you cannot update U-Boot, you might not be able to update your device tree either. We've run into plenty of situations where customers will update the kernel, but insist that U-Boot and the device tree remain unchanged. > And that means that old > device-tree + new kernel combination is left untested for years. > And untested stuff is broken stuff, by definition. I'm not saying that should officially support it. I'm saying we should make an effort to minimize the problem. Adding a few isolated lines of code to maintain that compatibility, and running a few tests, is not a bad idea and can save headaches for some people in the future. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale