Subject: Re: [PATCH] 86xx: mark functions static, other minor cleanups

From: Paul Gortmaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:28:52 -0400

Timur Tabi wrote:
> Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
>   
>> -void
>> +static void
>>  mpc86xx_hpcn_show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m)
>>  {
>>  	struct device_node *root;
>> @@ -190,13 +190,13 @@ static int __init mpc86xx_hpcn_probe(void)
>>  {
>>  	unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>>  
>> -	if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "mpc86xx"))
>> +	if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "fsl,mpc86xx"))
>>  		return 1;	/* Looks good */
>>     
>
> This breaks compatibility with older device trees.  You still need to look for
> "mpc86xx".
>
> A lot of people have been doing this recently, and it needs to stop.  You need
> to wait at least one whole kernel version before you can remove support for an
> older device tree.
>   

Valid point.  Is there a precedent here -- like a printk indicating
that the old ID matched, to let the user know?

>   
>> -void
>> +static void
>>  sbc8641_show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m)
>>  {
>>  	struct device_node *root;
>> @@ -118,13 +111,13 @@ static int __init sbc8641_probe(void)
>>  {
>>  	unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>>  
>> -	if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "mpc86xx"))
>> +	if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "wrs,sbc8641"))
>>  		return 1;	/* Looks good */
>>     
>
> Same here.
>   

Actually on this one, we are OK, since the board support didn't exist
in the default kernel until I'd just sent it last week.

Thanks,
Paul.