[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d3995c1-e1e7-35ff-d091-501822c97ecd@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 17:22:47 -0700
From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] Solve postboot supplier cleanup and optimize probe
ordering
On 5/24/19 2:53 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:49 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/23/19 6:01 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
< snip >
>> Another flaw with this method is that existing device trees
>> will be broken after the kernel is modified, because existing
>> device trees do not have the depends-on property. This breaks
>> the devicetree compatibility rules.
>
> This is 100% not true with the current implementation. I actually
> tested this. This is fully backwards compatible. That's another reason
> for adding depends-on and going by just what it says. The existing
> bindings were never meant to describe only mandatory dependencies. So
> using them as such is what would break backwards compatibility.
Are you saying that an existing, already compiled, devicetree (an FDT)
can be used to boot a new kernel that has implemented this patch set?
The new kernel will boot with the existing FDT that does not have
any depends-on properties?
-Frank
Powered by blists - more mailing lists