Hi Grant,

On Friday 21 March 2014 08:15:34 Grant Likely wrote:

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:26:12 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Thursday 20 March 2014 23:12:50 Grant Likely wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:52:53 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

Then we might not be talking about the same thing. I'm talking about
DT bindings to represent the topology of the device, not how drivers
are wired together.

Possibly. I'm certainly confused now. You brought up the component
helpers in drivers/base/component.c, so I thought working out
dependencies is part of the purpose of this binding. Everything I've
heard so far has given me the impression that the graph binding is tied
up with knowing when all of the devices exist.

The two are related, you're of course right about that.

We're not really moving forward here. Part of our disagreement comes in my
opinion from having different requirements and different views of the
problem, caused by experiences with different kind of devices. This is
much easier to solve by sitting around the same table than discussing on
mailing lists. I would propose a meeting at the ELC but that's still a
bit far away and would delay progress by more than one month, which is
probably not acceptable.

I can reply to the e-mail where I've drawn one use case I have to deal
with to detail my needs if that can help.

Alternatively the UK isn't that far away and I could jump in a train if
you can provide tea for the discussion :-)

I'm game for that, but it is a long train ride. I'm up in Aberdeen which
is 8 hours from London by train. Also, I'm travelling next week to
California (Collaboration summit), so it will have to be in 2 weeks
time.

Why don't we instead try a Google Hangout or a phone call today.
Anywhere between 11:30 and 14:00 GMT would work for me. I'd offer to
provide the tea, but I haven't quite perfected transporter technology
yet.

That would work for me, but not today I'm afraid. Will you already be in 
California on Monday ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart