Proposal to send GSM sysfs patches on stable

Andy Green andy at
Mon Mar 2 15:50:58 CET 2009

Hash: SHA1

Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| * Andy Green <andy at> [090302 15:21]:
|> Somebody in the thread at some point said:
|> | Dear Andy,
|> |
|> | Andy Green wrote (ao):
|> |> 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.
|> |
|> | Would it be too inconvenient to have a 'correct' Qi and a
|> | 'backwards compatible' Qi?
|> It's not inconvenient if it can choose what to do at runtime, based on a
|> sign from the U-Boot header that the kernel it's going to run can cope
|> with the right thing.
| what does this mean when booting from SD? No u-boot header involved
| there, no?

There is the same U-Boot header on our kernels no matter where you're
booting it from.

And it is a fixed-length (64 byte) header.

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


More information about the openmoko-kernel mailing list