On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:54:41AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > If you can share your opinions on the two register access approaches I > described, I will work on coordinating development in that direction. If I had a path forwards, then I would say so. At the moment, I have a vague idea about what I'd like to see, but it isn't in a workable state at the present time. I need to put further thought and time into coming up with a solution. For the time being, I am not going to apply the outstanding patches to put in place a solution which is totally confused about iomem and u32 types with lots of casts to make it work. Even one which passes u32 types to the IO accessors (which don't produce a warning but shouldn't be allowed in any case.) I'm sorry, but I have no further time that I can spend on this, not even proposing solutions, not even commenting back on the patches. That's the way it is. I'm _WAY_ over time on OMAP stuff this cycle and that's just going to have to be accepted by the community. Sorry. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
