RFC: Location for Device Tree Sources?

Milton Miller miltonm at bga.com
Fri Aug 4 02:30:41 EST 2006

On Aug 3, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 04:32:33AM -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
>> I don't think we need to bump the dt version every time we make a tree
>> content requirements change.  We need to bump when we add or
>> change fields in the struct header, change internal layout, or change 
>> how
>> we pass  information through the tree.  Certianly not because someone
>> left things out of their tree.
> But "content requirements change" isn't the same as "left things out of
> their tree".  It sounds, and I haven't seen the changes, so I'm not
> certain that the meaning behind a field changed.  Something like that
> should change the dt version.  New fields aren't a problem.  Changing
> existing fields meaning in incompatible ways is a problem.

Agreed.   I too haven't looked at the change, but thought it was the

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list