Proposal to send GSM sysfs patches on stable
mok at mnet-online.de
Mon Mar 2 13:28:51 CET 2009
* Andy Green <andy at openmoko.com> [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
Klaus 'mrmoku' Kurzmann
More information about the openmoko-kernel