On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 12:05 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote: > I meant the OLPC kernel. > > I presume that OLPC changes will be offered to mainline in some batch > fashion, rather than piecemeal. This particular one is of no upstream > value in isolation, as it is utterly dependent on OLPC-specific EC > commands.
As a general rule, that is totally incorrect. Changes should be pushed towards upstream _before_ they're ever committed to our tree, and any change which has been made only in the OLPC tree and not pushed upstream should be considered volatile and likely to disappear... like the private wireless ioctls I removed last week because they weren't upstream for example¹. However, you're right about this patch not going upstream -- I thought I'd already told you that the naïve patch to cs5536_warm_reset() as shown in ticket #4397 was not acceptable. It doesn't live in that function, and even if it did, it shouldn't be happening unconditionally based on CONFIG_OLPC. -- dwmw2 ¹ I have actually put them back now, temporarily. But they will be going away again. Nothing is stable until it's upstream. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
