Anton Vorontsov wrote: > And note that most developers are using up-to-date firmwares > (U-Boots), device trees, and kernels.
Developers? Yes. End-users? No. Updating U-Boot itself is often unacceptable for end-users. There's also a strong connection between U-Boot and the device tree. That connection gets stronger with every release, as U-Boot makes more and more changes to the device tree before passing it to the kernel. This means that if you cannot update U-Boot, you might not be able to update your device tree either. We've run into plenty of situations where customers will update the kernel, but insist that U-Boot and the device tree remain unchanged. > And that means that old > device-tree + new kernel combination is left untested for years. > And untested stuff is broken stuff, by definition. I'm not saying that should officially support it. I'm saying we should make an effort to minimize the problem. Adding a few isolated lines of code to maintain that compatibility, and running a few tests, is not a bad idea and can save headaches for some people in the future. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
