On Friday 14 January 2022 15:16:55 Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Pali Rohár (2022-01-14 15:05:49) > > On Friday 14 January 2022 14:56:58 Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > If we're adding new support why can't we break with backwards > > > compatibility for the binding and do it a different way? > > > > Because DTS are backwards compatible. I was told more times that kernel > > drivers should work correctly with older DTS files. On some boards are > > DTB files provided by bootloader and they do not use in-kernel DTS > > files. > > I'm not suggesting to break the kernel driver when used with older DTBs. > New features are fair game to change the compatible string and do > something different. If the user wants the new feature they update their > DTB. We shouldn't be constrained by backwards compatibility here. And what do you suggest to do? Separate UART0 and UART1 nodes are still needed because as Mark wrote stdin-path and stdout-patch could be different.
