Proposal to send GSM sysfs patches on stable

Andy Green andy at
Mon Mar 2 12:54:52 CET 2009

Hash: SHA1

Somebody in the thread at some point said:

|> Yeah, Qi is right as it stands, but of course the normal distro kernels
|> don't know to do the right thing at the moment.  I think I have to
|> revert Qi back to doing the wrong thing for a while otherwise it's going
|> to get the blame for breaking GSM comms.
| I'd prefer you don't do that, because Qi is doing the right thing and
| reverting to bad behaviour may introduce new problems.

It won't introduce new problems, but it might re-introduce old ones.
For example there is a slowly ongoing action to allow boot at 100mA
budget, this will simply work out a lot better with us not powering GSM
from the CPU when it's meant to be off at that time.  So I don't want to
revert it, but -->

| FSO (and therefore SHR) includes Werner's s3c24xx-gpio utility for
| quite some time, so it's very easy to workaround in userspace, just
| add two calls to bootscript.

I learned the hard way we have no control over the various rootfs /
distributions, many of them like to still issue 2.6.24.

Also, that way we would crap up several rootfs with a workaround for
something that should be fixed only by a kernel upgrade.

I also observed many strange unrelated things getting blamed on Qi by
customers, I guess because there is no LCM feedback at the moment.

So with these things in mind I conclude I should revert it despite it's
obviously the "wrong thing to do" because it's the least wrong thing

- -Andy
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -


More information about the openmoko-kernel mailing list