Jason, On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:40:16 +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: > Because my goal here was to give *every* possible chance for an > objection. Hence, "dt" and "break" in the subject line, sent to the > devicetree ML. Also, Marc mentioned the possibility in at least the > cover letter of each of his series. I don't want anything hidden. > > But you are absolutely correct. (2) was never guaranteed, and it's also > highly improbable as well. See below. Right. > > However, my slides are definitely not about #2 (which as said earlier, > > was never planned to be something we should worry about), but really > > about #1. > > I was referring to the slide where you mention that distros and vendors > have tied the dtbs to the kernel versions (Slide 23/27, "Usefulness"). > I should have been more specific when taking something out of context. > :-P > > My point, not well made, was that everyone has decided to slave the > upgrade of the dtb to the upgrade of the kernel. There is no 'apt-get > armv7-dtbs' that has no dependency structure on a kernel package. So we > agree, (2) was never guaranteed, and isn't probable either. And so is (1), then :-) Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
