On 16:30 Mon 20 Feb , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 15:27 Mon 20 Feb , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 04:08:10PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > wrote: > > > On 15:00 Mon 20 Feb , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 03:46:35PM +0100, Jean-Christophe > > > > PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > > On 13:58 Mon 20 Feb , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 02:46:34PM +0100, Jean-Christophe > > > > > > PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > > > > On 14:37 Mon 20 Feb , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > > > > > On 12:50 Mon 20 Feb , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:22:31AM +0100, Jean-Christophe > > > > > > > > > PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 10:08 Mon 20 Feb , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:58:13AM +0100, Jean-Christophe > > > > > > > > > > > PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18:17 Mon 13 Feb , Karol Lewandowski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + - udelay: delay between GPIO operations (may > > > > > > > > > > > > > > depend on each platform) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + - timeout: timeout to get data (ms) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If these are really needed then I would prefer to > > > > > > > > > > > > > have these fully > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualified (with unit type "-ms/-millisecs" appended). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regulator framework, with its "-microvolt/-microamp", > > > > > > > > > > > > > serve here as > > > > > > > > > > > > > prime example of being quite descriptive (one doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > neet to look up > > > > > > > > > > > > > the docs). Please see: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/67637 > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout are usualy in ms I don't really see the need of > > > > > > > > > > > > -ms or so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is obviously total crap for udelay, which would be > > > > > > > > > > > in _micro_seconds. > > > > > > > > > > agreed but here on i2c gpio I never see timetout as udelay > > > > > > > > > > so I don't see > > > > > > > > > > the mandatory to force the name in the binding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > futhermore it's maybe linux specific > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop grabbing at straws. There's nothing linux specific > > > > > > > > > about the units > > > > > > > > > of specification. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is linux specific is specifying the _delay_ rather than > > > > > > > > > specifying > > > > > > > > > the bus frequency. So as soon as you're trying to justify > > > > > > > > > not adding > > > > > > > > > the units because they may be linux specific, you've already > > > > > > > > > lost that > > > > > > > > > argument by using a delay rather than a bus frequency. You > > > > > > > > > can't have > > > > > > > > > it both ways. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, mixing microseconds and milliseconds in the > > > > > > > > > properties for a > > > > > > > > > device is absolutely insane. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, which ever way, your patch as it currently stands is > > > > > > > > > wrong and broken. > > > > > > > > no what I said is the binding timeout is maybe linux specific > > > > > > > > for i2c gpio > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not argue about that here we do not even disucss about the > > > > > > > bus frequency > > > > > > > but the specific bining to the i2c algo bit for it's internal > > > > > > > timeout > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the timeout is used to do not end in an infinite loop while ready > > > > > > > the scl on > > > > > > > slow device > > > > > > > > > > > > The patch is still wrong and broken. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you're not listening to me at all, I've lost patience, so I'm > > > > > > just going > > > > > > to say this: > > > > > > > > > > > > Explicit NAK on this patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > When you feel like you can _constructively_ _consider_ the point > > > > > > that both > > > > > > Karol and myself have raised with respect to the _U_N_I_T_S_ then > > > > > > feel free > > > > > > to continue this discussion. If not, don't waste your time writing > > > > > > another > > > > > > email. I hope that's plain. > > > > > > > > > > I do not discuss about the U_N_I_T_S at all in this reply > > > > > so the NACK is no revelent > > > > > > > > LET ME PUT IT IN BIG LETTERS FOR YOU. I AM DISCUSSING THE UNITS ISSUE > > > > IN > > > > MY EMAILS. YOU KEEP BRINGING UP THE LINUX SPECIFIC CRAP ABOUT UDELAY OR > > > > TIMEOUT. > > > > > > > > I AM TALKING ABOUT UNITS. MICROSECONDS. MILLISECONDS. > > > > > > > > I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT UNITS ON THIS THREAD ALL DAY SO FAR. > > > > > > > > GET IT THROUGH YOUR BIG HEAD THAT I AM DISCUSSING ABOUT THE UNITS. I AM > > > > NOT DISCUSSING, AND HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSING ABOUT WHETHER BUS FREQUENCY > > > > OR DELAYS ARE APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE. > > > > > > > > ALL THAT I AM DISCUSSING IS ABOUT THE UNITS. *T*H*E* *S*O*D*D*I*N*G* > > > > *U*N*I*T*S*. > > > > > > > > HAVE YOU GOT THE FUCKING MESSAGE YET? > > > > > > > > SO, THE NACK STANDS UNTIL YOU START REPLYING TO THE POINT I AM RAISING. > > > > > > I just said we have 2 properties > > > > > > - timeout which is expressed in jiffies (today in C) which is at my sense > > > a linux specific > > > propertie as it's representing a timeout of the i2c bit algo > > > and here I don't see the mandatory to name it timeout-ms or > > > timeout-milisecond > > > > THIS IS IN MILLISECONDS. > > > > > - udelay which is the delay between GPIO operations > > > > THIS IS IN MICROSECONDS. > > > > TWO DIFFERENT UNITS FOR TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES FOR THE SAME DEVICE. > > CONFUSING. NACK STANDS. > > I said > > > > > > > > I do not argue about that > > after I just discuss about the fact taht "timeout" is maybe linux > implementation specic and maybe need "linux," prefix that's all can I have the NACK removed because I sis not agrued on the UNIT I add more information about the fact that the property may be linux specific
Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
