On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 07:53:11AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Kumar Gala <ga...@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.
I'd suggest to deal with this on case-by-case basis. In every MPC8xx and MPC8xxx boards I've seen from Freescale there is absolutely no difference in upgrading kernel or device-tree blob. -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmai...@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev