On 5/24/19 2:53 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:49 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 5/23/19 6:01 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: < snip > >> Another flaw with this method is that existing device trees >> will be broken after the kernel is modified, because existing >> device trees do not have the depends-on property. This breaks >> the devicetree compatibility rules. > > This is 100% not true with the current implementation. I actually > tested this. This is fully backwards compatible. That's another reason > for adding depends-on and going by just what it says. The existing > bindings were never meant to describe only mandatory dependencies. So > using them as such is what would break backwards compatibility. Are you saying that an existing, already compiled, devicetree (an FDT) can be used to boot a new kernel that has implemented this patch set? The new kernel will boot with the existing FDT that does not have any depends-on properties? -Frank
