On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 12:45:22AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 12:17:09AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > yup the patch is not complete nor upstream quality.
>
> And?
highly questionable thus.
> > you remove functionality.
>
> What do you want to say?
stop playin
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 12:17:09AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> yup the patch is not complete nor upstream quality.
And?
> you remove functionality.
What do you want to say?
Bastian
--
Power is danger.
-- The Centurion, "Balance of Terror", stardate 1709.2
--
To UNSUBS
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:51:58PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 01:16:43AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > The attached patch should apply on the pruned version.
> > where is the request_firmware() usage?
>
> Nowhere.
yup the patch is not complete nor upstream quali
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:19:18AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Yep. Fixed. There are some magic constants in the code ...
Assuming okay.
Bastian
--
Lots of people drink from the wrong bottle sometimes.
-- Edith Keeler, "The City on the Edge of Forever",
star
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 01:16:43AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > The attached patch should apply on the pruned version.
> where is the request_firmware() usage?
Nowhere.
Bastian
--
Schshschshchsch.
-- The Gorn, "Arena", stardate 3046.2
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 09:42 +0200, Per Olofsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Robert Edmonds wrote:
> > The only rationale for removing the *firmware* is compliance with GR
> > 2006-004...
>
> Am I missing something here? Didn't that GR fail?
>
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004
There's no need for
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:44:24AM +, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> On 2007-10-10, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The attached patch should apply on the pruned version.
> Applies but does not compile:
Yep. Fixed. There are some magic constants in the code ...
Bastian
--
Knowledge, s
Hi,
Robert Edmonds wrote:
> The only rationale for removing the *firmware* is compliance with GR
> 2006-004...
Am I missing something here? Didn't that GR fail?
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004
--
Pelle
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
On 2007-10-10, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The attached patch should apply on the pruned version.
Applies but does not compile:
tg3.c: In function âtg3_reset_hwâ:
tg3.c:5399: error: âTG3_TSO5_FW_TEXT_LENâ undeclared (first use in this
function)
tg3.c:5399: error: (Each und
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 01:04:56AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:44:54AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > None, at least from my point of view. Just someone have to do it. (See
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on d-kernel.)
>
> The attached patch should apply on the pruned version
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:44:54AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> None, at least from my point of view. Just someone have to do it. (See
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on d-kernel.)
The attached patch should apply on the pruned version.
Bastian
--
We have found all life forms in the galaxy are capable of
Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Any modification to the tg3 driver to produce a GR 2006-004 compliant
> driver would have to diverge from the kernel team's patch acceptance
> guidelines[0] since upstream is intransigent[1] on making tg3
> firmware-free or firmware-optional. The kernel team does not appear
Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Robert Edmonds wrote:
> > Any modification to the tg3 driver to produce a GR 2006-004 compliant
> > driver would have to diverge from the kernel team's patch acceptance
> > guidelines[0] since upstream is intransigent[1] on making tg3
> > firmware-free or firmware-optional
13 matches
Mail list logo
