Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > That's hardly the only reason. But yeah, that's one way to > implement the workaround, but _we_ (the Linux community) cannot > do it like that (easily) for all users.
But you're the guy who told us our firmware sucks and we should fix our firmware rather than clutter Linux with too many fixups. There are about 200 lines of code required to bring the Efika device tree up to the Linux "specification" of a 5200B device tree, which will never make it into code. Pegasos is ostensibly the same way. Linux is already a bad enough moving target, and none of these fixes help other operating systems or developers, if we only patch Linux, and only say, you must run the latest Linux kernel version, and the latest U-Boot, and the latest FDT binary, and encourage users to upgrade it all regardless of your worries. So, there are two opinions here; 1) the reports as we had when Efika was released and continually levied against Pegasos firmware, that the firmware is broken and must be fixed to comply, and no fixes will be considered because "bplan sucks and must fix it" 2) As long as the patches are 2 lines big, you will allow them in, because it is too much for a user to update firmware or run a script to boot? Would you guys rather we shipped a boot script that ran the OS, fixed all these issues in-place in-firmware, so Linux did not have to have these workarounds, or are you accepting patches now? Because I can write those 200 lines of code to work around Efika device tree mistakes you yourself complained about at Christmas last year.. -- Matt Sealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
