iwpriv (Was: OLPC News 2007-12-30)

[Bernardo Innocenti]

David Woodhouse wrote:

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

btw, we still have code in /etc/init.d/olpc-configure that
tries to use one of those private ioctls to remap the leds,
and outputs errors if they're missing.  Is this still needed?


> 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.

An interesting goal would be cleaning up CONFIG_OLPC so that
it could be enabled in stock kernels of standard Linux distros.

-- 
 \___/
 |___|   Bernardo Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
  \___\  One Laptop Per Child - http://www.laptop.org/