All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alessandro Rubini <rubini@gnudd.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
	Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@linaro.org>,
	devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embedded tree
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:55:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50041D5C.7010904@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120716130015.GF17435@pengutronix.de>

On 16/07/12 14:00, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> What I am afraid of is: tentative solutions tend to stay, because the
>>> need for a proper solution is reduced. Yet, finding proper generic
>>> bindings might take some time which doesn't meet the high pressure
>>> around DT at the moment.
>>
>> I agree with what you say to some extent, but I believe that it is
>> more important to have a working solution now than to ensure that
>> each bindings are as unique as possible. After any suggestion of
>> consolidation, a move from vendor specific to generically defined
>> Device Tree bindings is trivial. Especially in the current stage
>> where adaptions and definitions are still fluid.
>
> See my response to Linus. I do understand your view and where it comes
> from. As a maintainer, I have other priorities. No offence involved,
> it needs some settlement.

I'm certainly not adverse to doing this, although I'd prefer it was 
completed in the short-term. So should we do it?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
M: +44 77 88 633 515
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embedded tree
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:55:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50041D5C.7010904@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120716130015.GF17435@pengutronix.de>

On 16/07/12 14:00, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> What I am afraid of is: tentative solutions tend to stay, because the
>>> need for a proper solution is reduced. Yet, finding proper generic
>>> bindings might take some time which doesn't meet the high pressure
>>> around DT at the moment.
>>
>> I agree with what you say to some extent, but I believe that it is
>> more important to have a working solution now than to ensure that
>> each bindings are as unique as possible. After any suggestion of
>> consolidation, a move from vendor specific to generically defined
>> Device Tree bindings is trivial. Especially in the current stage
>> where adaptions and definitions are still fluid.
>
> See my response to Linus. I do understand your view and where it comes
> from. As a maintainer, I have other priorities. No offence involved,
> it needs some settlement.

I'm certainly not adverse to doing this, although I'd prefer it was 
completed in the short-term. So should we do it?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
M: +44 77 88 633 515
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

  reply	other threads:[~2012-07-16 13:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-07-10  6:41 linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embedded tree Stephen Rothwell
2012-07-10  6:41 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-07-10  6:41 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-07-10  6:50 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-07-10  6:50   ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-07-10  6:50   ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-07-10  8:38 ` Wolfram Sang
2012-07-10  8:38   ` Wolfram Sang
2012-07-12 13:12 ` Wolfram Sang
2012-07-12 13:12   ` Wolfram Sang
2012-07-12 15:54   ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-07-12 15:54     ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-07-13 11:03     ` Lee Jones
2012-07-13 11:03       ` Lee Jones
     [not found]   ` <20120712131231.GH2194-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-07-14 21:34     ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-14 21:34       ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-14 21:34       ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-16 10:17       ` Wolfram Sang
2012-07-16 10:17         ` Wolfram Sang
2012-07-16 11:31         ` Lee Jones
2012-07-16 11:31           ` Lee Jones
2012-07-16 13:00           ` Wolfram Sang
2012-07-16 13:00             ` Wolfram Sang
2012-07-16 13:55             ` Lee Jones [this message]
2012-07-16 13:55               ` Lee Jones
2012-07-17 13:06           ` Mark Brown
2012-07-17 13:06             ` Mark Brown
2012-07-17 13:30             ` Lee Jones
2012-07-17 13:30               ` Lee Jones
2012-07-17 13:35               ` Mark Brown
2012-07-17 13:35                 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-17 14:02                 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-17 14:02                   ` Lee Jones
2012-07-17 14:22                   ` Mark Brown
2012-07-17 14:22                     ` Mark Brown
2012-07-17 14:52                     ` Lee Jones
2012-07-17 14:52                       ` Lee Jones
     [not found]                       ` <50057C1A.80606-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2012-07-17 15:20                         ` Mark Brown
2012-07-17 15:20                           ` Mark Brown
2012-07-17 15:20                           ` Mark Brown
2012-07-18  5:33                           ` Shawn Guo
2012-07-18  5:33                             ` Shawn Guo
2012-07-18  5:33                             ` Shawn Guo
2012-07-18  9:59                             ` Mark Brown
2012-07-18  9:59                               ` Mark Brown
2012-07-18 10:29                               ` Lee Jones
2012-07-18 10:29                                 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-18 10:33                                 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-18 10:33                                   ` Mark Brown
2012-07-18 10:43                                   ` Lee Jones
2012-07-18 10:43                                     ` Lee Jones
2012-07-18  7:35                           ` Lee Jones
2012-07-18  7:35                             ` Lee Jones
2012-07-18 11:12                             ` Mark Brown
2012-07-18 11:12                               ` Mark Brown
2012-07-18 11:24                               ` Lee Jones
2012-07-18 11:24                                 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-16 11:37         ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-16 11:37           ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-16 12:35           ` Wolfram Sang
2012-07-16 12:35             ` Wolfram Sang
     [not found]             ` <20120716123550.GE17435-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-07-16 19:45               ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-16 19:45                 ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-16 19:45                 ` Linus Walleij
     [not found]                 ` <CACRpkdaMB-n7XYcxE8QtAm-WrGc2DR0krfTjQZCbvOL1HYep1Q-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2012-07-16 20:04                   ` Chris Ball
2012-07-16 20:04                     ` Chris Ball
2012-07-16 20:04                     ` Chris Ball
2012-07-17 13:10             ` Mark Brown
2012-07-17 13:10               ` Mark Brown
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-07-19  5:28 Stephen Rothwell
2012-07-19  5:28 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-07-19  5:28 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-09-13  6:41 Stephen Rothwell
2012-09-13  6:41 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-09-13  6:41 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-09-13  7:09 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2012-09-13  7:09   ` Uwe Kleine-König
2012-11-15  5:27 Stephen Rothwell
2012-11-15  5:27 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-11-15  5:27 ` Stephen Rothwell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=50041D5C.7010904@linaro.org \
    --to=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=dsaxena@linaro.org \
    --cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linus.walleij@stericsson.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=olof@lixom.net \
    --cc=rubini@gnudd.com \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    --cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
    --cc=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.