From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:25:50 -0700
Message-ID: <577FFE3E.50600@gmail.com>
References: <1467503750-31703-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com>
 <20160707071548.GV14675@voom.fritz.box>
 <2D8CFA9A-C317-4C02-9893-169B4B77E01E@konsulko.com>
 <577FFCEB.9010600@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Return-path: <linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <577FFCEB.9010600@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com>, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, stephen.boyd@linaro.org, broonie@kernel.org, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>, mark.rutland@arm.com, Matt Porter <mporter@konsulko.com>, koen@dominion.thruhere.net, linux@roeck-us.net, marex@denx.de, wsa@the-dreams.de, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On 07/08/16 12:20, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 07/08/16 00:26, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>>> On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:15 , David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.a=
u> wrote:
>>>
>=20
> < snip >
>=20
>>> Given that we're going to need new code to support this new connect=
or
>>> model, I think we should also fix some of the uglies in the current
>>> overlay format while we're at it.
>>>
>>
>> We need to keep compatibility with the old format. There are 5 milli=
on
>> RPIs sold, half a million beaglebones and C.H.I.P. is coming out too=
=2E
>> They all use overlays in one form or another.
>>
>> That=E2=80=99s not counting all the custom boards that actively use =
them.
>>
>> We have a user base now.
>=20
> Please not that I AM NOT suggesting the we remove compatibility with
         ^^^ note

> the old format!!!
>=20
> But I need to push back on the idea that we have a user base that we
> need to keep compatibility with.  If I understand correctly, that
> user base is based on using much code that is not in mainline, includ=
ing
> an altered dtc and a cape manager.
>=20
> People using out of tree code can not use the fact that code exists a=
nd
> is being widely used to force us to mainline that out of tree code.
> That is the risk of using out of tree code.
>=20
> I do not want to start a big discussion about this now since there is
> no plan to remove the compatibility at this point.
>=20
> -Frank
>=20