On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:43:45PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/30/2014 06:59 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:57:18PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > <snip> > > >> But sure, you can still try to point new issues, get an obvious and > >> robust solution, and then discard the issue when the solution doesn't > >> go your way... > > > > And you've already proven that you're completely unwilling to even > > consider any other solution than what was originally proposed, so I > > really don't see how discussing this further with you is going to be > > productive. > > That is not true, we have seriously considered various other alternatives, > as you know since you've participated in the discussion about them. > > And we've found them all lacking, mostly because they are 10 times as > complicated. > > You've made your point that you don't like this solution quite loudly > already, and we've all heard you. However you seem to be mostly alone in > this. Even the clk maintainer has said that what we want to do is > exactly how clocks are supposed to be used in dt. > > If you don't like this no-one is forcing you to use the clocks property > in your own code. If it is not there, simplefb will behave exactly as > before. > > Now since you're the only one very vocally against this, and a lot > of people are in favor of this and have a need for this, can we > please just get this merged and get this over with ? Whatever. I no longer care. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpAWsHKY3Jg_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
