From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Grant Likely" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3]: Sparc OF I2C support. Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:14:57 -0600 Message-ID: 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: <48ADDF86.2040200@freescale.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: sparclinux-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Scott Wood Cc: David Miller , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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 g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.