[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160115194022.GA8371@amd>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 20:40:22 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
List for communicating with real GTA04 owners
<gta04-owner@...delico.com>, tomeu@...euvizoso.net,
NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Marek Belisko <marek@...delico.com>
Subject: Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4
On Fri 2016-01-15 10:34:51, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Am 13.01.2016 um 20:15 schrieb Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:28:00PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> >> Hi Tomeu,
> >>
> >> Am 12.01.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@...euvizoso.net>:
> >>
> >>> On 11 May 2015 at 03:56, NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name> wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>> here is version 4 of my "UART slave device" patch set, previously
> >>>> known as "tty slave devices".
> >>>
> >>> Hi Neil,
> >>>
> >>> do you (or someone else) have plans to continue this work in the short
> >>> or medium term?
> >>
> >> yes, there is something in our upstreaming pipeline. This one works for us on top of 4.4.0:
> >>
> >> <http://git.goldelico.com/?p=gta04-kernel.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/work/hns/misc/w2sg-tty-slave2-v4>
> >>
> >> There is one point still to be solved: the exact style of the DT bindings.
> >>
> >> We have an idea how a driver can implement two different styles (child node AND phandle)
> >> so that it is up to the DTS developer to use the one that best fits into the existing DTS.
> >
> > From my perspective as a binding maintainer, and as I stated before, the
> > child node approach made the most sense and was most consistent with the
>
> > way we handle other devices.
>
> I simply don't see that this is the most common way other devices
> are handled.
You promised to shut up once maintainers speak, that happened, and you
did not shut up. Just do it now.
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists