From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [85.21.88.6] (helo=buildserver.ru.mvista.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.66 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Imrrw-0007MW-TL for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:15:08 -0400 Message-ID: <47273BF4.80001@ru.mvista.com> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:13:08 +0300 From: Valentine Barshak MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add device-tree aware NDFC driver References: <20071029201738.GA2022@ru.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, sr@denx.de, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Valentine Barshak wrote: > >> This adds a device-tree aware PowerPC 44x NanD Flash Controller driver >> The code is based on the original NDFC driver by Thomas Gleixner, but >> since it's been changed much and has initialization/clean-up completely >> reworked it's been put into a separate ndfc_of.c file. This version >> supports both separate mtd devices on each chip attached to NDFC banks and >> single mtd device spread across identical chips (not using mtdconcat) as well. >> The choice is selected with device tree settings. This has been tested >> on PowerPC 440EPx Sequoia board. >> Any comments are greatly appreciated. > > Did I express myself not clear enough in my first reply or is this > just a repeated epiphany in my inbox ? > > You got plenty of comments to your patches, but you decided to ignore > them silently. > > Darn, fix it the right way once and forever and please don't try to > tell me another heartrending "why I did it my way" story. > > This all can be done with a nice series of incremental patches > including a fixup to the existing users. > > We have enough dump and run shit in the kernel already. > > No thanks, > > tglx You know, you're really too tense Thomas. I'm not sure of the reason why you're being a complete nerve, but I'm feeling sorry for you. I'm not saying my approach is the best, but I was hoping for a discussion. I've reworked the patches according to the comments to the previous version and used my arguments to explain why I don't see much reason to mess with the code we currently have and added a separate _of version. I'm sure you'd find some time to do it yourself "the right way once and forever" with a "nice series of incremental patches" to fix what we currently have (call it a "dump" or anything you like) and even maybe add new device tree support. I'm sorry if for some reason I've made you feel bad. This is the last time I disturb you with my e-mail, so please, forget it. Thank you very much for your comments anyway. It's been nice talking to you, Valentine.