On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 05:50:05PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> As for Freescale parts, all the reference board I've seen were
> very friendly wrt upgrading their device-trees, i.e. none of
> the boards were shipping with device-tree soldered into the
> firmware.
But many of them have broken when a dtb that u-boot didn't like was
inserted.
> And note that most developers are using up-to-date firmwares
> (U-Boots), device trees, and kernels.
So then why did we have to make cuImage?
> And that means that old device-tree + new kernel combination is left
> untested for years. And untested stuff is broken stuff, by definition.
There's a difference between risking that something may be broken, and
gratuitously making it broken.
> Sure, there is a completely different story wrt device-tree
> changes that might break firmwares. And that I believe we'd
> better avoid. For example device_type = "soc", if removed,
> most firmwares would not fix-up {clock,bus}-frequency properties.
Even if the given change may not break the firmware, it could force an
update in which a prior change breaks the firmware.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
