* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [090312 10:03]: > 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.) Well let's get the current omap clock patches in omap-clks3 merged. It is already way closer to what we need than the current mainline code. Paul, maybe you can post that series to linux-omap for final review and testing because of the mail/OOM issues Russell is having? Then we'll come up with a proper solution for the remaining patches after this merge window. > 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. Sure you have tons of other things to take care of, and the remaining omap clock patches can be sorted out over time. Regards, Tony -- 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
