From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752919Ab1CWBEI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:04:08 -0400
Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:47214 "EHLO gate.crashing.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751899Ab1CWBEG (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:04:06 -0400
Subject: Re: RFC: Platform data for onboard USB assets
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: andy.green@linaro.org
Cc: Jaswinder Singh <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>,
        Linux USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, arnd@arndb.de,
        broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, roger.quadros@nokia.com,
        greg@kroah.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D8924B6.8040403@linaro.org>
References: <4D79F068.2080009@linaro.org>
	 <AANLkTim=ezye=1fQP_1a2SWbPnbENP9B+k27Z3AkS=zf@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1300828125.2402.300.camel@pasglop>  <4D8924B6.8040403@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:03:39 +1100
Message-ID: <1300842219.2402.309.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.

Ben.