> > Else we could just wait and don't loose time with it? > That might be the best option. There is a pending pull request for the DVFS > stuff to get included into 2.6.38. Don't know if that includes everything we > need for a working DVFS on n900 though. And then there is a new nokia/2.6.37- > rc8-n900 branch in nokias kernel tree. So things are moving. > > I'm willing to spend time on a new kernel for n900 soon. But for sure don't > want to spend time into backporting stuff to the old maemo kernel, as I > consider it a dead end and thus lost time. > > That all does not answer the question which kernel we want to use for n900 > *today* though. From the things that don't work with the old kernel in your > feature list IMO the missing gpio buttons is the one hurting me most. It > makes > the power button not work and thus no nice quick-settings on button press. > > Maybe we should give the 2.6.37-rc8 one a try? I could do that within in the > next days. What do you think?
I agree with that. We are too few kernel hackers to finish one of the older kernels on our own. Our only chance to get a FOSS-friendly kernel where all the peripherals are supported is to let the paid Meego folks do the grunt job. Once we have such a kernel, I'm the first one who will ask for stabilization instead of tracking upstream, but I don't see such a kernel just yet. Cheers, -- :M: _______________________________________________ Shr-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shr-project.org/mailman/listinfo/shr-devel
