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 9244FDDFC8 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:41:53 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: From: Kumar Gala To: Timur Tabi In-Reply-To: <49EF8D42.7010104@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 16:39:46 -0500 References: <49EF7B11.2000006@freescale.com> <49EF7B1C.2080105@freescale.com> <282847E1-AE1A-44EF-9D18-AF2884105FA5@kernel.crashing.org> <49EF8D42.7010104@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 4:33 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > Kumar Gala wrote: > >> 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). > > Is this a new policy? I was under the impression that supporting > older > device trees, if not too inconvenient, is desirable. I've nack'd > patches before that broke backwards compatibility unnecessarily. The specific issue I'm talking about is the addition of new nodes that might break old device trees. I have no desire to try and say that I can't add new nodes and code related to them just because old device tree's didn't have them. - k