On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anton Vorontsov <avoront...@ru.mvista.com> wrote: > You could reply to my answers earlier and I would change and > repost the patches in a jiffy, since I am interested in these > patches. > > But you're obviously not interested in this support since you > didn't answer my replies. I'll explain. If you were interested > in some support you could give some chance to make patches > comfortable to you, and then you could even test them, and > maybe defend their inclusion.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and I am sorry that I wasn't able to reply earlier. I am interested in generic gpio of support, but you also need to understand that the run up to the merge window is a busy time as I need to collect all the patches that I'm responsible for and get them into linux-next for testing well before the merge window opens. I do not maintain gpiolib, and it was therefore quite low on my priority list at that time. After the merge window closes, I'll have time to be more responsive again. Regardless, this series was not going to be merged through any of my trees because I'm not maintaining gpiolib. Andrew asked me opinion on them, and I gave him my answer. Andrew can make his own decision about whether or not to merge them, but my opinion still stands. I'm sorry that I upset you. It was not my intention. Please keep in mind that it is not unusual for patches to take more than one cycle to get merged. For example, I've got patches out on the ARM list that were posted well before the merge window that have neither received comments, nor will be merged. I'll pursue them again after this merge window closes and other maintainers have more bandwidth to make a good decision about them. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
