Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> garrett_damore@tadpole.com wrote:
>
>   
>> Well, I don't want to have this sit in a branch forever.  I actually
>> tried to be compliant and make the changes you suggested, but got bit in
>> the ass.
>>     
>
> Well, I'd say it's better to wait a bit anyway...
>   

The problem with the "waiting" is that we had lots of paper discussion,
but everyone else said "just implement it and get some real-world
results".  So I'm doing that.  Talking just to hear my own voice isn't
that interesting, frankly.

>   
>> At this point, I'm going to stand my ground, I think.  Of course, core@
>> can always make the final decision. :-)
>>     
>
> Of cource I won't object core's dicision.
>   

Oh, either you or I can "object".  Its just that such an objection might
not have much meaning. :-)
>   
>> The problem is I had this conversation on tech-kern months ago.  It
>> bike-shedded.
>>     
>
> IIRC, the discussion was about com_arbus.c, i.e. stride or regmap.
> Was there any discussion about actual regmap implementation
> before you posted it here about two days ago?
>   

There was some discussion way back when.  But my post a couple of days
ago was the first time I proposed a concrete solution.  Its not just
com_arbus.c, btw, but really com_aubus.c that is most interesting.

Anyway, I've really tried to take criticisms constructively, but at this
point this *particular* criticism (the sc_iot BS), doesn't seem to be
fruitful, so I'm going to ignore it.

If you (or anyone else) comes up with a much better way to do this, then
you  (or whoever else) is more than free to either change what I've done
or ask core@ to reject my proposal with an alternate proposal.  I don't
really care either way.

    -- Garrett

> ---
> Izumi Tsutsui
>   


-- 
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/
Phone: 951 325-2134  Fax: 951 325-2191