From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:05:21 +0100 Subject: [PATCH V2 5/6] x86: add CONFIG_ARM_AMBA, selected by STA2X11 In-Reply-To: <4FF1F987.3030501@zytor.com> References: <4FECB95D.7010200@zytor.com> <20120701104401.GA4352@mail.gnudd.com> <2b797c83-6a3c-4051-841a-a4cfa9d1cae1@email.android.com> <201207021658.27755.arnd@arndb.de> <20120702180518.GA25995@sirena.org.uk> <4FF1E37D.7050103@zytor.com> <20120702183324.GA29030@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4FF1F987.3030501@zytor.com> Message-ID: <20120703110520.GI29030@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 12:41:59PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 07/02/2012 11:33 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > >> Last I saw I saw a patch to that effect, asked what the benefit > >> was, and got no answer. > > Are you positive about that? I don't recall you replying any of > > the times I sent out the patch and my mail archive isn't > > contradicting me either. > I said last time I saw a patch to that effect; it might not have been > from you. I might not have seen yours for whatever reason (including > losing it on my end.) I'm kind of surprised anyone else has been sending stuff (unless mine got resent by someone else, I did include it in some of my serises for the clock API); I know I've posted mine several times now. In any case, I hope the mail you're replying to answers your question about why it's useful. In general I'd probably go further and say that (at least when a generic implementation is available) there should be a very good reason for not enabling an API on an architecture rather than the other way around. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: