Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753293AbcD2V44 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:56:56 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f179.google.com ([209.85.161.179]:34414 "EHLO mail-yw0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752329AbcD2V4y (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:56:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160429215017.GC19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1461951139-6109-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <20160429181248.GW19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160429195741.GY19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160429211328.GZ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160429212920.GA19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160429215017.GC19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:56:38 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hBbLT1OUh_bP1m7SKwG9LR01NjE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Patches to allow consistent mmc / mmcblk numbering w/ device tree From: Doug Anderson To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Ulf Hansson , Jaehoon Chung , Shawn Lin , Adrian Hunter , Stefan Agner , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Brian Norris , Dmitry Torokhov , Heiko Stuebner , Jisheng Zhang , "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." , devicetree-spec@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Venu Byravarasu , Lars-Peter Clausen , Jon Hunter , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Pawel Moll , Ian Campbell , Grant Grundler , Kumar Gala , "Luca Porzio (lporzio)" , Rob Herring , Chaotian Jing , Sergei Shtylyov , Sudeep Holla , zhonghui.fu@linux.intel.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 906 Lines: 24 Russell, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:39:35PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > [didn't read most of your reply] > >> Really I just reposted it several times because I notice that you seem >> to ignore many points of my emails. I was really hoping to get you to >> address this point. I notice that you still didn't. Either you are >> just trying to annoy me, or you don't have an answer to how my patch >> series hurts you. > > I don't see you treating Rob with the same contempt that you have > treated me in this thread, despite Rob and myself both telling you > basically the same thing. Rob wrote a nice thoughtful reply and I tried to give a nice thoughtful reply back to him. He raised some good points and I raised some good points back to him. I look forward to his future thoughts on the topic. -Doug