On 29.10.2009 14:16, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:15:07AM +0100, r.marek@assembler.cz 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