From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 09:45:21 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] clocksource: sunxi: Add new compatibles In-Reply-To: <52EFF96A.1020302@linaro.org> References: <1391348280-9484-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <52EFC573.2050302@linaro.org> <20140203194505.GF25625@lukather> <52EFF96A.1020302@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20140204084521.GH25625@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:17:46PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 02/03/2014 08:45 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >Hi Daniel, > > > >(Adding DT mailing-list in CC) > > > >On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:36:03PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>On 02/02/2014 02:37 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >>>The Allwinner A10 compatibles were following a slightly different compatible > >>>patterns than the rest of the SoCs for historical reasons. Add compatibles > >>>matching the other pattern to the timer driver for consistency, and keep the > >>>older one for backward compatibility. > >> > >>Hi Maxime, > >> > >>is it really needed to keep the old pattern ? > > > >We agreed during the ARM Kernel Summit to consider the DT as a stable > >ABI. > > > >While I'd be ok with removing the older ones, that also means that we > >would break the boot of newer kernels with older DT, so yes, we > >actually need to keep the old compatibles. > > Thanks for the clarification. > > So these old compatibles will stay there 'ad vitam aeternam', right ? Except for what Rob told, yep, that was my feeling, but Gregory and I seem to have a different interpretation of this rule :) Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: