From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pokefinder.org (sauhun.de [88.99.104.3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3zSHyg4pgbzDr25 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:18:19 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:12:19 +0100 From: Wolfram Sang To: Frank Rowand Cc: Wolfram Sang , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Tyrel Datwyler , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Rob Herring , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues Message-ID: <20180125231219.mkgai2yurkj3f7ph@ninjato> References: <20180121143117.19805-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> <20180122114948.mm5mg6zqw3hmjj4o@katana> <11cf8fac-d2fe-ecdb-546f-de3c3b42a637@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dit7kcf37pndecqz" In-Reply-To: <11cf8fac-d2fe-ecdb-546f-de3c3b42a637@gmail.com> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --dit7kcf37pndecqz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Frank, here seems to be a misunderstanding going on. I don't want to push this patch upstream against all odds. I merely wanted to find out what the status of this patch is. Because one possibility was that it had just been forgotten... > > So, I thought reposting would be a good way of finding out if your > > concerns were addressed in the discussion or not. If I overlooked >=20 > Then you should have stated that there were concerns raised in the > discussion and asked me if my concerns were addressed. =46rom my perspective, I have done that: I marked the patch as RFC. I put you on the CC list. I asked about the possibility of applying it. It was not very elaborate, but hey, this is just a simple debugging patch :) I totally would have accepted a high level "No, that won't fly because...". Or a high level "This and that would need a change". Or something like that. I intentionally sent this out as RFC because I know there is some testing missing. I wanted to know if it is worth taking further steps with this patch. So, I simply wanted to know if you (still) have fundamental issues with the patch? That needs to be discussed first before we go into coding details. I think it is fine to not apply it if there are reasons. I'd like to know them, however, for a better understanding. For me, this is a super-super-side project, so if it causes too much hazzle, I just leave it here and know interested people can find it easier now. But if it could be applied with a sane amount of effort, I was offering that. Was that understandable? Kind regards, Wolfram --dit7kcf37pndecqz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAlpqZE0ACgkQFA3kzBSg KbaqOQ//U5b/tHeTPx+7dlv9PqVz4A0YcYIXCrtP/+rXOpBwWJBzHjh2eO7tTglD AvrBFrHZi9DIAOBXTliqwqTFCqwguc1S4pAMMOFqqxYHrbYF0bpN401iVSxeoU3S irhrH7bEHoIq6hI1Apg88tlIBIz6NP6ISutsFqN2CDbv8sUFvyPJwj4DQbf4/gLo 2JfPmiT5guKssyKwCHgue/fRvM8xn5TTkPGNAPtXJSfmkGur1Op9iHP1WQQ36JeL mGQlz1nCWcsbqTXCtyToURJnROsQk10A6SKafnX1FsJ10l+vUVBm+9/Kzkzewcis XbnsWmQX+cSIZBSuTMxwXk9qQiYzU0E9nH678HjT9R+FHWZNm1wTo7ssuyZYxNOV rt9EIjW/wCwts9tvvT+Rsjq+Twh5VeqQyd3nAyyFlwJauWVqB4159JM7+keD8g0O kKPXhU3akKji34oZERVwrAV3rlyiwDr/kdq6BY2YIHCW8Gpt6/H7IsIArfBrA+iq 4QZJrV/Ffu8Af8Vw1uGDahOmlCCO4FhcNv2SfP7RISJBxTa0zqFS2AHriTwmHlS5 pJDmzMNVDuxIk6vjVpq6m4OpMnwnkjSHnJ50SXKtd0zxclnONzxDHvxb/hzGkpgf BKPJjEdau0yXwplJPQ5YgHEnPOLCP0GcKGBD4bKfuvGX7HuM3MY= =AkWb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dit7kcf37pndecqz--