Proposal to send GSM sysfs patches on stable

Klaus Kurzmann mok at
Mon Mar 2 13:28:51 CET 2009

* Andy Green <andy at> [090302 13:21]:
> Somebody in the thread at some point said:

> |> 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
> |> overall.
> |
> | I dare to disagree. Why don't you ask the actual distribution
> | maintainers?

> Well it's not that hard to disagree on a mailing list, people do it all
> the time, relentlessly even.

> Because I am in charge of Qi, from their point of view I created this
> problem (by fixing a bigger problem in Qi and the kernel), so I can
> "fix" it here.  That's why we see "Qi breaks GSM" threads despite the
> whole story is quite different.

> Otherwise, they will simply propose people keep using U-Boot and not Qi
> as their "fix".  To the extent we pull some extra current until GSM is
> turned on, Qi is then compatible with old and new kernels.  So it's the
> best path right now AFAICT.

> These guys need to uplevel to more recent kernels anyway, over time the
> pressure for them to do so will only increase.  After some time we can
> go back to Qi doing the right thing and the whole boot sequence will be
> fine for this issue without workarounds in the rootfs.
Well... speaking for SHR... I strongly prefer Qi doing the right thing
and fix our kernel/rootfs instead (which we will do with the next kernel

Maybe a strong notice about this on openmoko-devel ML or on planet would
be enough? At least people cannot complain about silently breaking
things then...

> -Andy

Klaus 'mrmoku' Kurzmann

More information about the openmoko-kernel mailing list