Pong. ;-) On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:03:31PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 14:22 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Following up on the old discussion, I talked briefly about this > > issue with BenH at the kernel summit. The outcome basically is that > > it's a bit sad to have incompatible bindings, but it's not the end > > of the world,and it's more important to do it right this time. > > > > Just make sure that you use different values for the 'compatible' > > strings and then do what you need to get the ARM hardware working. > > > > Ideally, the new binding should be written in a way that powerpc > > machines can use the same one, but the existing ones all use > > an version of Open Firmware that is not going to get updated > > and it's also not too likely that we are going to see new > > powerpc machines based on this chip. > > Right, mostly these machines where the Pegasos. Those came with a fairly > busted variant of Open Firmware which generated a pretty gross > device-tree. > > For some reason, the manufacturer of those things was never willing to > fix anything in their firmware (despite the distributor providing > patches etc...), seemingly on the assumption that whatever they were > doing was perfect and operating system people like us didn't matter one > little bit :-) > > So I don't care much about it. It would be nice to keep them working > since people in the community still have them but if it goes through > some "compat" code that detects old/broken device-trees and eventually > disappears when we finally drop support, then so be it.
Ian, What is the status of this work? thx, Jason. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
