galak at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Apr 23 07:31:10 EST 2009
On Apr 22, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
>> Timur Tabi wrote:
>>>> these two are related and seem like we could look for
>>> That's okay, as long as you don't break compatibility with older
>>> device trees that don't have that property, unless you can
>>> that these trees would never work with the current kernel anyway.
>> All CPM2 device trees should have fsl,cpm2 listed in the compatible
>> the CPM node.
> Yes, but did they always have that compatible field? I'm concerned
> about situations where someone updates his kernel but not his device
> tree. This is a scenerio that we always need to try to support.
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).
More information about the Linuxppc-dev