From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:46:06 +0000 Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code Message-Id: <20140930114605.GA23304@ulmo> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g" List-Id: References: <20140929080637.GB12506@ulmo> <20140929092301.GC4388@lukather> <20140929101805.GB26008@ulmo> <20140929104454.GD26008@ulmo> <20140929113436.GA4081@lukather> <20140929135358.GC30998@ulmo> <20140929155718.GD4081@lukather> <20140930045957.GA29874@ulmo> <542A9771.2030401@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <542A9771.2030401@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:43:45PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On 09/30/2014 06:59 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:57:18PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: >=20 > >=20 > >> But sure, you can still try to point new issues, get an obvious and > >> robust solution, and then discard the issue when the solution doesn't > >> go your way... > >=20 > > And you've already proven that you're completely unwilling to even > > consider any other solution than what was originally proposed, so I > > really don't see how discussing this further with you is going to be > > productive. >=20 > That is not true, we have seriously considered various other alternatives, > as you know since you've participated in the discussion about them. >=20 > And we've found them all lacking, mostly because they are 10 times as > complicated. >=20 > You've made your point that you don't like this solution quite loudly > already, and we've all heard you. However you seem to be mostly alone in > this. Even the clk maintainer has said that what we want to do is > exactly how clocks are supposed to be used in dt. >=20 > If you don't like this no-one is forcing you to use the clocks property > in your own code. If it is not there, simplefb will behave exactly as > before. >=20 > Now since you're the only one very vocally against this, and a lot > of people are in favor of this and have a need for this, can we > please just get this merged and get this over with ? Whatever. I no longer care. Thierry --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUKpf9AAoJEN0jrNd/PrOh8K4QAINTOUhOd0SKiPcWLMEcnQcs h8w1n8VgBNfwJXB/7AyxpWMLC3vjkidYc264B4sw7kWD3zMIVZiw6FE2V/PIddth hVXBEBg1/EFG7ri1fmJON1qvF/pNVYHgZj6xjI2C7uvWrG99yjvk36DaGxAG/E0w LhVVUd9s+fQDC1fMM0aWJvxaNV7DL05hSZjHlEVrwNWcwWv8fQZeM63JTT1HaOXH 3hDBDF9mDMx5nt7qOaKCDRSzwgSIhefMwSRS2lKGcusxVL3MN9C62MB4239sTg5z zLA1bkocOqtQYMJmgslNarDQYsTAkcF73L4mmhBQbWywGXLbgxuwP04g4J/BIcgZ UsQzAUGtWwa+IVH7D+7oZP7VAOqChRsfPa7t5llCCKYxCOUFp1qtsRdyh99Yc0Z3 Mjx08s2egJs0EOkqH4x78ciS2EavTyvRc5PtYdrbqxkYIWbXDAHlntwK4i3rvWQ6 S2Lmlc+pb4SIGpvmm3YkjodlvAqJafi2gXCWo0k4oJF7UDXZliVABXEdCqGvPJjW z4g91n4kylqIEfOI1xKa+Z2P4xsHSEOZNna3vdKACa9XrLv5VxmbEXVW4i3NXO3y aOl/5H8jeNFFXhZt9h0jNhJ13iG8yGDf7TsG4nXpdbF14MCh+Zd/CVXzfMazo0EC orVjNleKCP3W+nMtrLJz =gM+I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g--