From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:31239 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262254AbUC1UsX (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:48:23 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:48:19 +0100 From: Russell King Subject: Re: Future of linux-arch Message-ID: <20040328214819.F10358@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20040328120133.D2825@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20040328122920.404e5b37.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040328122920.404e5b37.davem@redhat.com>; from davem@redhat.com on Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 12:29:20PM -0800 Sender: Russell King To: "David S. Miller" Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 12:29:20PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > See, because this patch goes beyond arch issues, driver folks have to use > these interfaces, so logically it appears that folks outside of the arch > community should contribute to the design and review of said interfaces. So this is the thanks for taking hold of an issue which someone else raised and trying to get it sorted. Fine. But that's no good if we can't even present what we think is a good interface from the architecture side. Which it appears we still can't. Remember that it was Andrea who raised it on lkml and it moved to to linux-arch because all the architecture people needed to be involved? Well, I'm sick to death with this issue. Someone else can sort out this problem. I'm going to just do what's necessary to sort it on ARM and leave it at that. If that screws someone else, tough shit. I've made the effort and done my best to find a reasonable solution. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/ 2.6 Serial core