On 19 August 2011 19:49, Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2011/8/19 Koul, Vinod <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx>: >> On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 15:06 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Koul, Vinod <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> I think Sundaram is in the position of doing some heavy work on >>> using one or the other of the API:s, and I think he is better >>> suited than anyone else of us to select what scheme to use, >>> in the end he's going to write the first code using the API. > >> And Unfortunately TI folks don't seem to care about this discussion :( >> Haven't seen anything on this from them, or on previous RFC by Jassi > > Well if there is no code usig the API then there is no rush > in merging it either I guess. Whenever someone (TI or > Samsung) cook some driver patches they can choose their > approach. > No, it's not a matter of "choice". If that were the case, Sundaram already proposed a TI specific flag. Why wait for him to tell his choice again? You might, but I can't molest my sensibility to believe that a Vendor specific flag could be better than a generic solution. Not here at least, where the overhead due to generality is not much. (though I can trim some 'futuristic' members from the 'struct xfer_template') Maintainers might wait as long as they want, but there should never be an option to have vendor specific hacks. -- 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
