Timur Tabi wrote:
Scott Wood wrote:
Timur Tabi wrote:
these two are related and seem like we could look for "fsl,cpm2"
That's okay, as long as you don't break compatibility with older
device trees that don't have that property, unless you can demonstrate
that these trees would never work with the current kernel anyway.
All CPM2 device trees should have fsl,cpm2 listed in the compatible of
the CPM node.
Yes, but did they always have that compatible field?
Yes, except for trees from the previous era of CPM2 bindings which are
not supported at all. This isn't new.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
