Hi Rob, On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 02:11:28PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Maxime Ripard > <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > (Adding DT mailing-list in CC) > > > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:36:03PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> On 02/02/2014 02:37 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> >The Allwinner A10 compatibles were following a slightly different compatible > >> >patterns than the rest of the SoCs for historical reasons. Add compatibles > >> >matching the other pattern to the timer driver for consistency, and keep the > >> >older one for backward compatibility. > >> > >> Hi Maxime, > >> > >> is it really needed to keep the old pattern ? > > > > We agreed during the ARM Kernel Summit to consider the DT as a stable > > ABI. > > > > While I'd be ok with removing the older ones, that also means that we > > would break the boot of newer kernels with older DT, so yes, we > > actually need to keep the old compatibles. > > It all depends if that would really cause problems for a given > platform. So if Allwinner DT support is a moving target, then changing > is probably okay. For example, if anyone using the platform is going > to need to update their DTB to add more nodes to get various features > anyway, then breaking it is not all that important. We keep adding new stuff to the DT, yes, so I guess we can be considered a moving target. Thanks for your input! Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
