From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc: add support for MPIC message register API From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Scott Wood In-Reply-To: <20110620105946.23708a43@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> References: <1306869543-18812-1-git-send-email-meador_inge@mentor.com> <1306869543-18812-3-git-send-email-meador_inge@mentor.com> <1308288784.32158.30.camel@pasglop> <20110617115828.3cebd5c9@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <1308351533.32158.61.camel@pasglop> <20110620105946.23708a43@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:47:52 +1000 Message-ID: <1308642472.32158.157.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Meador Inge , openmcapi-dev@googlegroups.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Hollis Blanchard , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 10:59 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:58:53 +1000 > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:58 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > > When did this change from "considered an internal implementation > > > issue, and not really an interface" to "all new interfaces"? > > > > Interesting blurb... that's not everybody's opinion and I would argue > > that supporting AMP kernels isn't something we want to do with closed > > source crap. > > I'm not advocating "closed source crap", just that if something is > "policy" (as opposed to opinion), it'd be nice if the documentation > actually matched. Well, in Linux, the line between opinion and policy is quite blurred. I don't know for sure what Linus himself thinks here and various other maintainers have expressed various opinions as well. As far as I'm concerned, I don't see the point in encouraging binary junk, especially for low level interfaces like this one. Cheers, Ben.