From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 20:40:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20160115194022.GA8371@amd> References: <20150511013540.5709.93626.stgit@notabene.brown> <481E05A9-A192-438D-B092-D7700B30BBC4@goldelico.com> <20160113191542.GA12086@leverpostej> <1CD6CA14-AE4F-444F-A9A2-CF9B9485F2DC@goldelico.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1CD6CA14-AE4F-444F-A9A2-CF9B9485F2DC@goldelico.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" Cc: Mark Rutland , List for communicating with real GTA04 owners , tomeu@tomeuvizoso.net, NeilBrown , One Thousand Gnomes , Peter Hurley , Arnd Bergmann , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sebastian Reichel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Rob Herring , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Grant Likely , Jiri Slaby , Marek Belisko List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri 2016-01-15 10:34:51, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Am 13.01.2016 um 20:15 schrieb Mark Rutland : > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:28:00PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > >> Hi Tomeu, > >> > >> Am 12.01.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Tomeu Vizoso : > >> > >>> On 11 May 2015 at 03:56, NeilBrown wrote: > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> here is version 4 of my "UART slave device" patch set, previously > >>>> known as "tty slave devices". > >>> > >>> Hi Neil, > >>> > >>> do you (or someone else) have plans to continue this work in the short > >>> or medium term? > >> > >> yes, there is something in our upstreaming pipeline. This one works for us on top of 4.4.0: > >> > >> > >> > >> There is one point still to be solved: the exact style of the DT bindings. > >> > >> We have an idea how a driver can implement two different styles (child node AND phandle) > >> so that it is up to the DTS developer to use the one that best fits into the existing DTS. > > > > From my perspective as a binding maintainer, and as I stated before, the > > child node approach made the most sense and was most consistent with the > > > way we handle other devices. > > I simply don't see that this is the most common way other devices > are handled. You promised to shut up once maintainers speak, that happened, and you did not shut up. Just do it now. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html