lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSat, 19 Apr 2008 13:50:47 -0400
FromAndres Salomon <>
SubjectRe: 2.6.25-mm1
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:38:33 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:25:44 -0400 Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:29:25 -0700
> > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:10:24 -0400 Joseph Fannin <jfannin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 01:47:57AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
> > > 
> > > which we probably just shouldn't do this at all unless we're running on the
> > > OLPC hardware.  But we need to do this to find out if we're running on the OLPC
> > > hardware!  Perhaps the warning should just be removed.
> > 
> > Hm.  We could either protect that code with an:
> > 
> > if (!is_geode())
> >   return;
> > 
> > Or I could add the OpenFirmware patches which would allow us to get
> > rid of this code, and instead check for the existence of OFW using
> > that.
> > 
> > The former is quick and easy; the latter is (imo) nicer, so long as
> > people don't have problems w/ the OFW code.  :)
> > 
> 
> Do both ;)
> 
> The quick-n-easy version sounds suitable for now.

Heh, I already had sent the nicer version.  If people have some fundamental
problem w/ it, I can send the quick-n-easy version.


-- 
Need a kernel or Debian developer?  Contact me, I'm looking for contracts.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-19 19:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2008