On 13 November 2017 at 15:40, Andreas F?rber [off-list ref] wrote:

Am 06.11.2017 um 12:28 schrieb Ard Biesheuvel:

quoted

On 6 November 2017 at 06:58, Andreas F?rber [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Am 05.11.2017 um 04:39 schrieb Ard Biesheuvel:

[...]

quoted

quoted

Again, I am not the one who is ranting here. You hit a nerve by
accusing me of 'rebelling against linux.git' while this is quite the
opposite of what I am doing.

Actually you did confirm that point by starting an argument about not
needing a central repository and you not liking Linux as the location.
That was exactly what I meant with my original comment.

Adding Actions Semi was somewhat easy as a new vendor and now - roughly
a year after the board went to market - there's Linaro contributions
from Mani that I'm thankful for.

Whereas patches keep falling into a dark hole when there's already other
work for a certain vendor, such as Marvell and now Socionext, with no
one feeling responsible for either taking them or saying, "hey, we're
not going to submit any conflicting DT bindings for SynQuacer because we
use ACPI, so please go ahead with proposal X, thanks for your efforts".

Don't complain about me ranting if you belittle my volunteer work that I
believe Linaro and its partners should've done in the first place: If I
can get an initial mainline PoC done as an individual on a few
evenings/weekends, then the same should be super-easy for an
organization with lots of engineers and paying member companies.

The only person doing the ranting, rebelling and belittling in this
thread is you. I have never commented on the nature of your work, let
alone belittle it.

You have stated your opinion that Device Trees don't belong in a central
repository and that Linux was the wrong place for them.

Not as strongly as that, but ok.

My contributions
to Linux have been mainly such Device Trees and bindings, such as this
patch series here.

Again, I don't have a clue what it is you work on, although I just
found out (from the other thread you started) that it involves a
Fujitsu not-quite-96board that shares IP with the SynQuacer SoC? It
was my understanding (from information I received from Socionext) that
any upstreaming efforts involving that SoC had been discarded. I guess
the Socionext and Fujitsu engineers are not talking to each other
either.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Mathematical proof usually involves inferring new facts from existing
facts. You have done nothing of the kind, and I am not sure what you
are so angry about, but I think it would be better to leave the
emotions out of it, and try to remain factual. Especially when it
comes to representing other people's statements.

-- 
Ard.