Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
In message OF71B40F2E.5C935BA8-ONC125781B.007CB9E6-C125781B.007E5726@transmode.se you wrote:
No other board is broken. This new function is neutral to other boards.
Well, I see this differntly.
Wolfgang, once you indicated you were interested in such feature as I have added but my first impl. had LINK_OFF calls all over the place, still you were tempted to add the feature. Now that I have reduced the LINK_OFF calls to a minimum you suddenly want to reject it even though >95% of the LINK_OFF calls are gone. Why this change of heart?
Yes, I am definitely interested in this feature.
But I still consider the impact to make this really working to heavy (and by working I mean working for all boards, out of the box, without having to go through iterations of breakage to find out where else a LINK_OFF needs to be added).
In the current form, your "simplification" results just from the fact that you just added the bare minimum needed for your board. If - as you hope - more and more boards would use this, more and more of these now omitted LINK_OFFs would have to be added again. The result would be exactly the same mess as your original patch - it doesn't small any better when you try to feed it to me in small bites.
And frankly, adding this stuff for an out-of-tree port is, um..., sorry, but I don't find polite words atm.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk