On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Nikolaus Voss
On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Nikolaus Voss
But this discussion isn't really related to your patch. I think is
correct but just said that (b) wasn't a justification to leave the I2C
table, points (a) and (c) are though. I won't really be convinced that
the fallback is the correct thing to do or even a good idea.
I didn't want to annoy you, I just wanted to understand why you think
fallback is such a bad thing that you call it a bug. And I see, it has its
drawbacks ;-). Anyway, thanks for taking the time to clarify this,
Oh, I'm not annoyed, sorry if I sounded that way. What I tried to say
is that I've a strong opinion on this and won't be convinced otherwise
So for me is a bug because that would mean that either an entry is
missing in an OF device table or a DTS has a node with a compatible
string without a vendor prefix.