Hi! > we (the developers of the hardware) have proposed an alternative > approach to Neil’s implementation - for the same device and solving > the same problem (notifying tty open/close and uart activity to the > slave device driver), but differently. > > See: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/28/91 > > Discussion has not yet settled on which approach is better. So your > opinion of comparing both is welcome. Actually, yes, discussion has settled, agreeing that phandle reference for the uart is a bad idea, Nikolaus just refuses to listen to anyone, asking "device tree maintainer opinion", and then just simply ignoring it when he does not like it, and then making promises he did not keep. Please don't stall patches just because of that. Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
