On 29.10.2009 14:16, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:15:07AM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > >>> Why is no time being spent on removing the other options that >>> actually harm booting this device? Why does this feel like more >>> pointless pedanticity? >>> >> It sounds you are really pissed off - please try no to look like exploded >> supernova ;) >> > > The reason is that i just got pestered with some hyperpedandicity on > a whole wad of flashrom code, all because 1 tiny board enable was not > deeemed acceptable straight away (and the user acked the original code, > but now wandered on). Now i am quite sensitive. >
I wrote "I'd prefer a conversion to ich_gpio_raise instead.". This was not intended as NACK, but rather a nudge to reuse existing generic code. I'm very sorry if you felt offended. I created a cake for you as an apology: http://imagebin.org/69634 > Such hyperpedandicity stems progress as it: > * tackles no real issues, even though plenty are around. > * reduces the ability to get real issues tackled. Because patches do not > get accepted, the real code in the patches gets ignored and issues > with that code will eventually make it anyway, and those willing to do > real work are not exactly encouraged. > Your last patch is a really great improvement over the old code in the tree. We now have real single-line board enables on ICH. Thanks a lot! Regards, Carl-Daniel -- Developer quote of the week: "We are juggling too many chainsaws and flaming arrows and tigers." -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
