scottwood at freescale.com
Thu Apr 23 06:20:29 EST 2009
Timur Tabi wrote:
> 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?
Yes, except for trees from the previous era of CPM2 bindings which are
not supported at all. This isn't new.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev