From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jon Smirl" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3]: Sparc OF I2C support. Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:45:23 -0400 Message-ID: <9e4733910808211645p27ff2c6ci6dba6f363e9ece15@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080821.001012.265401427.davem@davemloft.net> <20080821163256.GC15669@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <20080821.142134.127315039.davem@davemloft.net> <48ADDF86.2040200@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: sparclinux-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Grant Likely Cc: Scott Wood , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, David Miller List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 8/21/08, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > David Miller wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > >> If you guys created this format in your compressed openfirmware > >> trees, is it possible for you to "fix" it to match what Sparc > >> systems following the proper bindings do? > > > > Possibly, though it'll cause some pain when old trees are used with a kernel > > that expects the new binding. > > > Ugh, more like loads of pain. There are deployed platforms using the > embedded 'invented' bindings. I don't think it is an option to break > compatibility with older trees. If there is some backwards > compatibility code then I'm all for migrating to the same binding as > Sparc and PowerMac Has anything really been deployed? These bindings are only a few months old. -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com