On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 22:37 +0000, Andy Green wrote: > > > that a device-tree based approach is much better in the long run > > (and > > > more flexible) despite Andy odd quasi-religious aversion for it. > > > > As Mark Brown wrote earlier about this, the Device Tree > > "implementation > > just isn't there in mainline". > > Right and will take even longer to get there as long as short sighted > people like yourself appear to run some kind of religious battle against > it for no good technical reason that I can fathom so far. Sorry Ben, but you are the one who sounds like a priest here, having invoked the "religious" qualifier twice in a row in this thread. I think that Andy is asking absurdly good questions which are backed by candid logic and reasoning. If anything, his arguments are purely technical and extremely practical. And so far all he's got for answers was rather subjective, emotionally charged and even dogmatic. With regards to DT on ARM I'm rather "softly" convinced this is a good thing. However seeing a persisting lack of truly technical answers to Andy's questions is rather disturbing, and makes me wish for much more than the current hype around DT which appears to fall flat when challenged. There is one hard fact that no one can ignore: DT support on ARM still has a long way to go before it is truly usable. The world just can't stop turning until this is ready. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
