Subject: Re: removing get_immrbase()??

From: Scott Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:20:29 -0500

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