David Woodhouse wrote: > 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. > > ¹ I have actually put them back now, temporarily. But they will be going > away again. Nothing is stable until it's upstream.
btw, we still have code in /etc/init.d/olpc-configure that tries to use one of those private ioctls to remap the leds, and outputs errors if they're missing. Is this still needed? > 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. An interesting goal would be cleaning up CONFIG_OLPC so that it could be enabled in stock kernels of standard Linux distros. -- \___/ |___| Bernardo Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ \___\ One Laptop Per Child - http://www.laptop.org/ _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel