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. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev