Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: soc: renesas: add MFIS binding documentation

[Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1153 bytes --]


> And look when my question was asked:
> 19th of Match:
> "I did not get the driver so I cannot verify that. What sort of Linux
> ABI does this bind?"
> 
> You ignore it and on 23rd of Match you send v2.

The opposite is true. I saw it as a short-coming of v1 that you didn't
get the driver to properly review it. So, like many other short-comings
of v1, I addressed it in v2. I explicitly paid attention to send the
driver in v2 to you and explain more of my reasoning to continue the
discussion then on a better ground. This is exactly *not ignoring*!

> And now you reply that "you got driver as well in v2". Seriously? How
> can I move from 19th Match into the future of 23rd to get the email from
> the future? And some answers from the future?

You can't. But why can't we move the discussion to v2 instead? There is
more context. This seems like absolutely normal development to me.

> Respond to review instead of ignoring it and sending v2.

Again, it was not ignoring. I even explained in v2 why I kept some
choices as in v1. Might still be wrong, could be. But I tried to address
the comments as best as I could.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]