From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756418Ab1KHVPK (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:15:10 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:58118 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750907Ab1KHVPI (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:15:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:14:42 +0000 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Felipe Balbi Cc: Nicolas Ferre , rmallon@gmail.com, Nikolaus Voss , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, khali@linux-fr.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: add new driver Message-ID: <20111108211442.GK12913@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <7bdd6b456b0e055441cb25634c8cb6d483718f6c.1320753142.git.n.voss@weinmann.de> <20111108144115.GH20728@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <4EB9477E.8070002@atmel.com> <20111108152343.GJ20728@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20111108182955.GH12913@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20111108184447.GB24399@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20111108185525.GI12913@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20111108190200.GC24399@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20111108193930.GJ12913@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20111108195854.GD24399@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111108195854.GD24399@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 09:58:55PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 07:39:30PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > But, that's something very different from your statement in your previous > > message about my alleged stance on *all* asm/*.h includes in drivers, > > which is FALSE. > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=132077795410718&w=2 > > I don't see me complaining about *all* headers anywhere in that message. > I did generalize, but I didn't stated you were complaining about *all* > headers. Go back and read it for yourself. I really can't believe what you're saying. "You were (actually still is) one of the biggest source of complaints for drivers using and includes and now you're changing your mind ?" That's an exact quote. That statement is very clear in its meaning - and it doesn't match your assertion that it doesn't mean "all" because it makes no distinction what so ever between any of those header files. > You see ? I was asking $author to try and use some revision register in > order to apply erratas instead of using cpu_is_at91rm9200(). For fuck sake, - AND AGAIN - I was asking you to *qualify* your fucking statement. It was you who then launched an attack about irrelevant junk like what includes and so forth. You must be drunk this evening. Please come back once you've sobered up.