From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andre.przywara@arm.com (Andre Przywara) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:16:29 +0000 Subject: breaking DT compatibility In-Reply-To: <20160211145158.GA8824@localhost.localdomain> References: <1454358000-13594-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <56B4E2FB.3050703@arm.com> <56BB2D79.6090402@arm.com> <20160210143755.GE31506@lukather> <20160210163001.GG2632@leverpostej> <20160211100048.GK31506@lukather> <20160211145158.GA8824@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <56BCA5CD.3080008@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On 11/02/16 14:51, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:00:48AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> None of our existing users ever complained. > > Note to self: > > Avoid choosing this SoC for new projects. The maintainers do not > care about the end users. Now that's a bit harsh, I think. Maxime is doing a great job for maintaining this admittedly not very well architected and documented SoC "family" - in his spare time. Also the actual end user experience is probably just fine (despite broken DT compatibility), since on these storage-less boards the distributions usually ship DT, firmware (U-Boot) and kernel bundled together. This does not qualify for breaking the DT deliberately, but we are about to fix this as we speak. Also my concern was just that I wanted to move away from this being the only way of running Linux on those boards. We may think about collecting DTBs and firmware for those boards in a central place without direct connection to a certain Linux version or distribution. This would make the whole idea more visible and would make compatibility breaks more evident. Cheers, Andre.