From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.ebshome.net (gate.ebshome.net [64.81.67.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "gate.ebshome.net", Issuer "gate.ebshome.net" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2963679F0 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:12:03 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:12:00 -0700 From: Eugene Surovegin To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: 85xx FDT updates? Message-ID: <20060425161200.GC20228@gate.ebshome.net> References: <1145900516.4251.18.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com> <4C61B597-BD91-4D05-BB40-43DE0319F123@kernel.crashing.org> <17017F03-078C-4B7F-A961-EC371F534E27@embeddedalley.com> <34C11E8A-ED04-490F-B601-841DC1F94AD6@kernel.crashing.org> <20060425074902.GA20228@gate.ebshome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:05:54AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > > Second, this seems normal like normal kernel development to me. I > think its reasonable to pick some time frame after which we will > remove the support and to let everyone know what that is. I see this > as no different than having a driver outside of the kernel tree and > having it break when APIs change. I don't agree. This is not the same as changing _internal_ kernel API for a simple reason that _firmware_ was never part of the kernel and will never be. You seem to have an idea that's that's OK to _remove_ existing functionality from the kernel for no reason except your convenience. I think this is unacceptable. If kernel was able to boot on some hardware (including reference one) in the past it should be able to do this now even if this will require some boot shim. -- Eugene