Hi Finn,
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 05:26:17PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
I had assumed that your intention was to find a consensus so that the
whole tree could be consistently and automatically improved
Yeah, my main goal was to get rid of setup_irq(), other things were
secondary and proceeded to achieve the removal by hook or crook, but was
caught red handed :)
Sometimes had a feeling as though the changes in this series is akin to
cutting the foot to fit the shoe ;), but still went ahead as it was
legacy code, easier & less error prone. But now based on the overall
feedback, to proceed, i had to change.
Not based on feedback from me I hope -- I have no veto in this case, as
you can see from MAINTAINERS.
i don't know what to say, i attempted to accomodate the reviews as
much as possible, some times when opinions are conflicting i had to
take a call one way or the other, with more importance to maintainer's
view.
Regards
afzal
