Kumar Gala wrote:
> 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.
Are we having two different conversations? I was talking about this
block from your email:
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/cpm2.h:#define CPM_MAP_ADDR (get_immrbase() +
>> 0x80000)
>> arch/powerpc/sysdev/cpm2.c: cpm2_immr = ioremap(get_immrbase(),
>> CPM_MAP_SIZE);
>> 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.
Specifically, I was referring to this comment:
these two are related and seem like we could look for "fsl,cpm2"
And my point was that not all device trees have "fsl,cpm2" in their CPM
nodes.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
