From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.238]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2092DDE11F for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:55:11 +1000 (EST) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f9so449604rvb.9 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:55:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <49EF7B11.2000006@freescale.com> <49EF7B1C.2080105@freescale.com> <282847E1-AE1A-44EF-9D18-AF2884105FA5@kernel.crashing.org> <49EF8D42.7010104@freescale.com> From: Grant Likely Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:54:55 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: removing get_immrbase()?? To: Kumar Gala Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Scott Wood , Linuxppc-dev Development , Timur Tabi List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Kumar Gala wro= te: > > On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > >> Kumar Gala wrote: >> >>> I disagree. =A0If 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? =A0I was under the impression that supporting olde= r >> device trees, if not too inconvenient, is desirable. =A0I've nack'd >> patches before that broke backwards compatibility unnecessarily. > > The specific issue I'm talking about is the addition of new nodes that mi= ght > break old device trees. =A0I have no desire to try and say that I can't a= dd > new nodes and code related to them just because old device tree's didn't > have them. Ah... yes, you're right. Never mind my previous reply. g. --=20 Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.