On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > >> Kumar Gala wrote: >> >>> I disagree. If you update your kernel you should update your device >>> tree (thus we have .dts in the kernel tree and not somewhere else). >> >> Is this a new policy? I was under the impression that supporting older >> device trees, if not too inconvenient, is desirable. I've nack'd >> patches before that broke backwards compatibility unnecessarily. > > The specific issue I'm talking about is the addition of new nodes that might > break old device trees. I have no desire to try and say that I can't add > new nodes and code related to them just because old device tree's didn't > have them.
Ah... yes, you're right. Never mind my previous reply. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
