On 12/06/2017 14:54, Nicolas Ferre wrote: [ ... ] >> I like the 'chosen' approach with the nodes you are proposing below. Thanks for >> the constructive suggestion. The binding description matches perfectly what we >> are trying to achieve. >> >> Rob? what do you think? > > I'm following this work from a distance but as we've just celebrated the > 1st anniversary for this patch series (11 June 2016), I propose that we > now make up our mind quickly. Everybody seem to be on the same page and > willing to make this rework move forward. > > In Microchip/Atmel we would like to actually use this TCB rework both > internally and in our mainline work to avoid having to rely on our own > out-of-tree implementation. > > The newly-added samv7 cortex-M can't boot without this series and a use > of our current cortex-A SoCs with TrustZone in Secure World (SWd) is not > possible with current mainline code only. On these two examples, the > current timer on which we rely, the PIT, is not present. > > So you probably understand that more than one year without real progress > begins to be a little bit frustrating for the AT91 users... Nicolas, who are you exactly blaming? Are you surprised a 58 patches series, with a gazillion of Cc'ed people posted awhile ago, is ignored? -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
