removing get_immrbase()??
Kumar Gala
galak at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Apr 23 07:54:07 EST 2009
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>> The specific issue I'm talking about is the addition of new nodes
>> that
>> might break old device trees.
>
> New nodes or new properties? The CPM nodes are not new. On some
> device
> trees, the original versions did not have a compatible property for
> the
> CPM nodes (e.g. commit 0b5cf10691eb2c95a9126bf25f5e084d83d5d743).
> Therefore, there are device trees out there that are missing some
> property.
>
> Like I said earlier, if you can demonstrate that *all* of these device
> tree would be broken with the latest kernel anyway, then we don't need
> to worry about backwards compatibility.
>
> I'm tired of debugging customer issues where the kernel is updated but
> the firmware and device tree aren't. IMHO, Kernel developers are
> generally too lax when it comes to firmware and device tree backwards
> compatibility, and I think that's wrong.
New nodes. For example I've proposed a "local access window" node.
Once I add it I plan on changing code to use it. This will break an
old device tree booting with the new kernel and I'm completely ok with
that.
- k
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list