preparing pcf50633 for upstream
andy at openmoko.com
Fri Oct 3 00:02:21 CEST 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Mike (mwester) wrote:
>> Sure, ideally the OM distro should be the reference implementation for
>> these and it wouldn't hurt to document how they work.
> Examples are excellent, but asking someone to decipher the enormous body
> of code in the very dynamic Om distro in to figure something out is not
> the complete solution -- they'll probably not find it unless they
> already know what they're looking for.
I did say, "...and it wouldn't hurt to document it". Kernel side of
some of it is documented in the page I started for the /sys stuff
...otherwise most of the other points are out of scope for me.
> It would also be nice to outline why that was chosen, to preempt
> re-discussion of the same things that might otherwise occur. Sure,
> someone would certainly be able to search the mailing list for
> historical discussions, but again, they're not likely to find the right
> topic unless they already know what to look for.
> Despite our protests to the contrary, source code != documentation!
AIUI Mickey Lauer has his eye on defining a bunch of this and related
stuff in a more formal way, I think it can answer this reasonable
request for some docs.
> I have nothing against the use of the defconfigs in the git repo, except:
> $ grep APM_POWER def*
> defconfig-2.6.24-maxmodules:# CONFIG_APM_POWER is not set
> defconfig-gta01:# CONFIG_APM_POWER is not set
> So which is the right way? :-(
We seem to be about to throw out APM Emulation, so I guess not having it
will be the right way shortly and solve this inconsistency. I also
imagine GTA01 getting along fine without it until now means it ain't
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the openmoko-kernel