Hi Pavel, Am 28.08.2015 um 09:02 schrieb Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>: > 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, no, I only refuse to listen to you. You are neither maintainer for any subsystem that is involved nor have you contributed technical arguments pro/con and it appears to me that you refuse to listen to my argumentation. > 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. Which promises did I not keep? Please be specific, instead of insulting. I bring up this alternative again, since I get the impression that most readers are simply not aware of *both* alternative proposals. > Please don't stall patches just because of that. Please provide better arguments and don’t spread FUD. Please have a look into our RFC implementation and study it carefully to learn why it is the better (IMHO more flexible, easier to maintain, more modular) approach. Even if you don’t like phandles. > > Best regards, > Pavel > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html BR, Nikolaus -- 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
