Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/3] tty slave device support - version 3.

From: "Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: List for communicating with real GTA04 owners 
	<gta04-owner@goldelico.com>, NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/3] tty slave device support - version 3.
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 18:12:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <C68A105A-7147-4143-9B91-1A239726A780@goldelico.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150506142849.GA14839@amd>

Hi Pavel,

Am 06.05.2015 um 16:28 schrieb Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>:

> On Wed 2015-05-06 13:50:29, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> Hi Pavel,
>> 
>> Am 06.05.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>:
>> 
>>> On Wed 2015-05-06 07:19:31, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>> 
>>>> Am 05.05.2015 um 21:54 schrieb Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Neil,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 03/18/2015 01:58 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
>>>>>> here is version 3 of support for tty-slaves.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there a v4 of this that I missed?
>>>> 
>>>> We did have a lengthy discussion about [PATCH 3/3] how to best (1)
>>>> represent the slave device in the device tree but as far as I am concerned,
>>>> I do not see that we have a consensus (2) and the device tree maintainers
>>>> have no comments or clear guidelines so far.
>>> 
>>> Yes. Everyone and their dog disagrees
>> 
>> What a wonderful argument…
>> I still ask myself who the dog is.
> 
> Ok, so now device tree maintainers spoke and told you, you are wrong,

did they already say that and have more convincing arguments? So far I have
always identified a flaw in the argumentation or a contradiction with practice
(e.g. busses are usually addressable, McBSP and PHY do uses phandle and
not subnodes).

> and you still argue?

And as long as I think the others are still wrong (focussed to see and model
UART like a “bus”), I tell them and explain my arguments where and why I
disagree with what they say or propose.

Especially if I feel that their arguments are not technically convincing (me).

Although all this is less about technical solutions but design principles:
what makes a good DT design.

Well, Linux will survive with any solution, but what are you interested in?

Users/contributors who keep quiet and accept a bad solution or those
who argue for a (initially in their opinion) better one?

Or stop as soon as Pavel says to do so?

> You'll only attrack more "wonderful" arguments
> that way.

None was “wonderful”. They were valid concerns about my proposal
and I have replied to them how I see it.

Generally, if you are not interested in people dedicated and committed to
fight for the better solution with (technical) arguments and concrete proposals
how it should be in their opinion, then please just tell and I will shut up.
But only then.

Or if some DT maintainer makes a decision and says: I have listened and
understood all arguments pro and con and I decide this or that way (preferrably
with giving reasons of decision as a guidance for similar problems in the future).

Then we all can go to implementation.

BR,
Nikolaus