On 13:55 Sun 29 Mar , Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> +For each peripheral/bank we will descibe in a u32 if a pin can be > >> +configured in it by putting 1 to the pin bit (1 << pin) > > > > This seems to be describing driver intrinsics in the device tree, like > > how the hardware is routed on the inside and what it can do. > > > > IMO that is driver territory, the driver should know these limitations > > and protest if you try to do something illegal. > > > > Anyway as the AT91 maintainers seem to disagree I will allow some > > more time for discussion before merging the patch. > > > > I can't really have one AT91 maintainer NACKing another, it doesn't > > matter that this is a separate driver, in my book the MAINTAINERS > > entry for AT91 as a whole overrides that so can you please find an > > agreement on how to handle this or I will stall the patch until > > you're in agreement. > > Nicolas has been the de-facto maintainer of AT91 for quite a while > now, even though more of them are listed on the maintainers entry. It > would be inappropriate to merge something that he disagreed with on > that platform. I'm still following it > > > ARM SoC maintainers input would be welcomed. > > It seems appropriate to ask the at91 folks to come back with a > solution that everybody is OK with, and until then hold off merging > this. when the nack is motivated not just I don't like it Best Regards, J. -- 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
