<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Matt Turner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mattst88@gmail.com">mattst88@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">2011/4/20 Tom Cooksey <<a href="mailto:tomcooksey@gmail.com">tomcooksey@gmail.com</a>>:<br> </div><div class="im">> So while I agree re-inventing something just for the sake of it is bad,<br> > that's not what's happening.<br> <br> > In fact, I think there's a good chance TTM will<br> > be ripped out, stuck into its own driver (with its own device node /dev/ttm)<br> > and extended to meet everyone's requirements.<br> <br> </div>I'm having a hard time understanding how these two seemingly<br> contradictory sentences fit one after another. Are you saying that<br> this new project will be modifying TTM and sticking it in its own<br> driver with its own device node?<br> <br></blockquote><div><br>If this is something you're interested in, why not pop onto the mailing list and join the discussion? Take a look at the patches being proposed and give feedback. It sounds like you have understanding of TTM which people in that community might not have. Go help them out.<br> <br>Also, I've briefly described my thoughts of what they could do, but you're getting 3rd-hand information from someone who's no idea how TTM or even GEM works and has no idea what the community's goals are. I'm probably wrong (very likely in fact), go find out for yourself! :-)<br> <br><br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Tom<br><br></div></div>