[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1300842219.2402.309.camel@pasglop>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:03:39 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: andy.green@...aro.org
Cc: Jaswinder Singh <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
Linux USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, arnd@...db.de,
broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, roger.quadros@...ia.com,
greg@...ah.com, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Platform data for onboard USB assets
On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 22:37 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> > that a device-tree based approach is much better in the long run
> (and
> > more flexible) despite Andy odd quasi-religious aversion for it.
>
> As Mark Brown wrote earlier about this, the Device Tree
> "implementation
> just isn't there in mainline".
Right and will take even longer to get there as long as short sighted
people like yourself appear to run some kind of religious battle against
it for no good technical reason that I can fathom so far.
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists