From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Antonino A. Daplas" Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] VT binding: Add new doc file describing the feature Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:46:51 +0800 Message-ID: <448BA03B.6060800@gmail.com> References: <44893407.4020507@gmail.com> <448AC8BE.7090202@gmail.com> <9e4733910606100916r74615af8i34d37f323414034c@mail.gmail.com> <448B38F8.2000402@gmail.com> <9e4733910606101644j79b3d8a5ud7431564f4f42c7f@mail.gmail.com> <448B61F9.4060507@gmail.com> <9e4733910606101749r77d72a56mbcf6fb3505eb1de0@mail.gmail.com> <448B6ED3.5060408@gmail.com> <9e4733910606101905y6bfdff4bo3c1b1a2126d02b26@mail.gmail.com> <448B8818.1010303@gmail.com> <9e4733910606102027o8438d55webf938dfc8495ea8@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FpHqr-00057K-OQ for linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:47:05 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1FpHqr-0004DW-Ge for linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:47:05 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so1357204pye for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:47:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9e4733910606102027o8438d55webf938dfc8495ea8@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-fbdev-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: linux-fbdev-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Jon Smirl Cc: Andrew Morton , Greg KH , Linux Fbdev development list , Linux Kernel Development Jon Smirl wrote: > On 6/10/06, Antonino A. Daplas wrote: >> My point is: 'Multiple active drivers feature' is a natural consequence >> of the evolution of the code, but the only way to take advantage of it >> is if we provide a means for the user to use it. And we are not >> providing the means. Maybe you're misunderstanding me. When I say "we are not providing the means", I mean "we are definitely not going to provide the means", NOT, "so we should be providing the means". Tony