On 12/19/07, Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 03:04:51PM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote: > > Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > > > >diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c > > >index 3cf84d0..91bac51 100644 > > >--- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c > > >+++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c > > >@@ -1242,7 +1242,7 @@ int __init fsl_spi_init(struct spi_board_info > > >*board_infos, > > > } > > > > > > for (np = NULL, i = 1; > > >- (np = of_find_compatible_node(np, "spi", "fsl_spi")) != NULL; > > >+ (np = of_find_compatible_node(np, NULL, "fsl,spi")) != NULL; > > > > Can you keep the original code around to look for older device trees that > > are wrong? Backwards compatibility is important. I don't want to have to > > update the device tree just because I update the kernel. > > I though about it. Is your device tree source out of tree? Otherwise > it should be trivial to upgrade the dtb, instead of producing cruft in > the kernel. I vote for less legacy code, but lets see what others will > say. So far count is 1:1. ;-)
I agree with Timur. Please keep the test for the older names. Some platforms have the dtb in the same sector as u-boot, making it more dangerous to reflash. g. > -- > Anton Vorontsov > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > backup email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev > -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (403) 399-0195 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
