removing get_immrbase()??

[Grant Likely]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Kumar Gala <galak at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> 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 "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?  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).

Not always possible.  The device tree may be 'softer' than firmware,
and easier to update, but it is still firmer than the kernel.  That is
why so much effort has been spent to not break compatibility with
older device trees.

g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.