[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50899E6C.8040403@freescale.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:17:48 -0500
From: Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Wei Yang <Wei.Yang@...driver.com>,
Manoil Claudiu-B08782 <B08782@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gianfar_ptp: use iomem, not ioports resource tree in
probe
Richard Cochran wrote:
> Getting back to your really ignorant comment, I suggest that you look
> at this review. It was made by Grant Likely. Perhaps you have heard of
> him?
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/23/281
>
> I was the original developer of the PTP code, and my code went through
> fifteen rounds of review. And guess what - I actually listened to the
> reviewer's comments and changed my work accordingly.
I'm sorry for what I said. It was inappropriate. I deal with crappy code
from co-workers on a daily basis, and sometimes I forgot that just because
something is done differently than I would have done it, that doesn't mean
it's wrong.
> You can read all about what happened, but you will have to find v15
> yourself. Be sure to pay special attention to the history of
> irq_of_parse_and_map() verses platform_get_irq().
I actually did that research and saw Grant's comments. I asked him about
it on IRC, and although I understand his reasoning, I'm not sure I agree
with all of it. In particular, I think
platform_get_resource/request_resource/ioremap is less elegant than just
calling of_iomap.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists