On Mon 2006-09-11 13:33:00, Matthew Locke wrote: > On Sep 11, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > >On Mon 2006-09-11 22:06:36, Pavel Machek wrote: > >>On Mon 2006-09-11 12:53:27, Matthew Locke wrote: > >>>On Sep 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > >>>btw, if people on this list are not ready to ACK PowerOP, I would > >>>like > >>>to hear why before we go elsewhere. It looks like all major issues > >>>have been addressed by our approach and implementation. > > > >Oh and I am pretty tired of teaching you 'how to submit a patch', so > >if I'm quiet, do not take it as an "ACK". ... > What does your going quiet mean? You have had some good feedback so I > much prefer we reach some sort of understanding. If your final > statement is that PowerOP is not needed and you are never going to like > it or ACK It, let us know. We can agree to disagree. You got the interfaces wrong. While I believe that something like powerop can indeed be useful for system-on-chip platforms, I do not think it should be exposed outside of kernel. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
