Re: RFC: Platform data for onboard USB assets
From: Nicolas Pitre
Date: Tue Mar 22 2011 - 22:26:52 EST
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
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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/