From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com (Alexandre Belloni) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:39:21 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] rtc: Allow rtc drivers to specify the tv_nsec value for ntp In-Reply-To: <20171128102025.GT31757@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> References: <20171013175433.GA22062@obsidianresearch.com> <20171123095456.lkc4nkuzsd2q26mm@piout.net> <20171127175254.GL31757@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <20171127184411.GA19577@piout.net> <20171127185352.GN31757@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <20171127193135.GA21126@piout.net> <20171128102025.GT31757@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20171130193921.GB21126@piout.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 28/11/2017 at 10:20:25 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 08:31:35PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 27/11/2017 at 18:53:52 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > You are, yet again, wrong. > > > > > > I am in a position to make the comment because it was me who identified > > > the problem, put in the hours to work on, develop and extensively test > > > Jason's patch. So, it's partly my time that you seem to be wasting, > > > and that gives me every right to complain at this point. > > > > > > You, on the other hand, were copied with every single email, and did > > > nothing to discuss the issue except for the "easy" bits when I posted > > > a relatively smaller patch - but you ignored the bigger issue. > > > > And this is exactly what you do with other people patches/time when you > > don't like their changes. > > You simply ignore the patch series until they go away. > > That is not intentional. > So please, don't assume that I replied late intentionally. > > I would really expect people merging code in any subsystem to wait for > > the ack of the maintainer of that subsystem. > > > > I didn't complain about any missing email addresses, I said the RTC ML > > was not copied but that is didn't matter. > > A mailing list is an email address. > Yes and again, this was a non issue, simply that the patch was not in the RTC patchwork but that is completely irrelevant to the matter. > Now you're making crap up. I've not made any comment about this being > something that needs fixing urgently. In fact, as I've said several > times already, I really don't care what you do with the mainline kernel, > because I have a fix here locally that I intend to use and maintain > into the future. For me, the issue is fixed and resolved, and I intend > to spend no further time developing any fixes for it. > > My comments are about the _two months_ its taken to get to the stage of > finding out that you don't like the approach. > Again, sorry, this was not intentional. > The result of this is, most likely, one of: > 1. you'll revert the patch (which, incidentally, has no real effect until > my other patches get merged) and everyone will either be stuck with a > kernel that sets their RTC time wrong when they have NTP installed > Ok, let's not waste everything. I think the main issue is that I still don't get how this can actually improve the situation with regards to userspace. Can you share your series so I could maybe understand? I'm especially interested in how you will handle the pcf8523 (if you did that of course). -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com