On 16-06-21, 17:04, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > Half correct: I sent it to the list, but this wasn't tex'ified yet. > > When we had an email conversation about this, it was about submitting > the existing spec in a formal correct way. Don't get me wrong: I > apreciate that somebody's doing the beaurocratic work. But still have > no idea why you changed it completely, so there's quite nothing left > but the name and that it somehow does gpio via virtio. > The one I've resent (now texified) a few days ago. It had been submitted > in ascii form last year. The answer from virtio TC folks whas that there > are some formal steps to be done and it needs to be patched int their > tex document. Okay, we figured out now that you _haven't_ subscribed to virtio lists and so your stuff never landed in anyone's inbox. But you did send something and didn't completely went away. Since you started this all and still want to do it, I will take my patches back and let you finish with what you started. I will help review them. Please start with specification first, and resend them as soon as possible. So we can start with reviews there. Also please cc relevant people directly, like GPIO maintainers in kernel and few more from CC list of this email, as most of these people aren't subscribed to virtio lists, they will never get your patches otherwise. Lets get over this once and for all. > You sound like a politician that tries to push an hidden agenda, > made by some secret interest group in the back room, against the > people - like "resistance is futile". :) -- viresh
