From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20080821.163216.239892875.davem@davemloft.net> To: grant.likely@secretlab.ca Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3]: Sparc OF I2C support. From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <20080821.142134.127315039.davem@davemloft.net> <48ADDF86.2040200@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: scottwood@freescale.com, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: "Grant Likely" Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:14:57 -0600 > 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 You could even put the detection and reg property fixups in the device tree expander. This way generic code in drivers/of/of_i2c.c doesn't need to know about this huge mistake.