[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4684026.MA6h34pt1X@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:19:54 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, khali@...ux-fr.org, ben-linux@...ff.org,
w.sang@...gutronix.de, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio / ACPI: add ACPI support
On Monday, November 05, 2012 02:11:03 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 05, 2012 02:14:21 PM Mathias Nyman wrote:
>
> >> per-chip based numbering sounds saner, but this deals with what we
> >> currently have.
> >
> > And we need something to hook up drivers to right now.
>
> So speaking of it I have these drivers consuming pinctrl that I need
> to hook up right now and the subsystem maintainers are NACKing
> the patches because they want a centralized solution instead of
> per-driver hooks and I get the red light...
>
> Do you think they will change their mind and give me green light if
> I tell them I just need to do it right now? ;-)
Well, it's just a matter of fairness to me, actually.
If you allowed somebody to do something in the past, it's simply unfair
to forbid someone else to do a similar thing later, isn't it?
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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