From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw02.freescale.net (az33egw02.freescale.net [192.88.158.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "az33egw02.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6F85DDF81 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:20:34 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <49EF7C0D.4040509@freescale.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:20:29 -0500 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: removing get_immrbase()?? References: <49EF7B11.2000006@freescale.com> <49EF7B1C.2080105@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <49EF7B1C.2080105@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Linuxppc-dev Development List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Timur Tabi wrote: > Scott Wood wrote: >> Timur Tabi wrote: >>>> these two are related and seem like we could look for "fsl,cpm2" >>> That's okay, as long as you don't break compatibility with older >>> device trees that don't have that property, unless you can demonstrate >>> that these trees would never work with the current kernel anyway. >> All CPM2 device trees should have fsl,cpm2 listed in the compatible of >> the CPM node. > > Yes, but did they always have that compatible field? Yes, except for trees from the previous era of CPM2 bindings which are not supported at all. This isn't new. -Scott