OLPC News 2007-12-30

[David Woodhouse]

On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 12:05 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> I meant the OLPC kernel.
> 
> I presume that OLPC changes will be offered to mainline in some batch 
> fashion, rather than piecemeal. This particular one is of no upstream 
> value in isolation, as it is utterly dependent on OLPC-specific EC
> commands.

As a general rule, that is totally incorrect. Changes should be pushed
towards upstream _before_ they're ever committed to our tree, and any
change which has been made only in the OLPC tree and not pushed upstream
should be considered volatile and likely to disappear... like the
private wireless ioctls I removed last week because they weren't
upstream for example¹.

However, you're right about this patch not going upstream -- I thought
I'd already told you that the naïve patch to cs5536_warm_reset() as
shown in ticket #4397 was not acceptable. It doesn't live in that
function, and even if it did, it shouldn't be happening unconditionally
based on CONFIG_OLPC.

-- 
dwmw2

¹ I have actually put them back now, temporarily. But they will be going
away again. Nothing is stable until it's upstream.