Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: HTC Dream aka. t-mobile g1 support | From | Daniel Walker <> | Date | Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:05:34 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 13:24 -0700, Brian Swetland wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Russell King - ARM > Linux<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:31:31PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> Is there patch for Dream support for 2.6.30 somewhere? The best I > >> could find is linux-msm tree, which is ... quite a big diff against > >> 2.6.24: > > > > In short not as far as I know, and I'm very disappointed with the state > > of affairs with google. > > > > Basically, the situation surrounding msm can be described as severely > > wanting - bear in mind that it's been over a year since we last heard > > anything from the msm guys as far as code submissions go. > > > > Personally, I think we should delete the entire codeset which was > > submitted into mainline - it's next to useless and all the time that > > folk sit on their hands not maintaining it, it's just not worth having > > it anywhere near mainline. > > I'd love to find an effective way to get more of the msm support > cleaned up (as necessary) and into the mainline. We're bringing our > work forward and rebasing to keep tracking the latest released kernel, > and working on getting core bits we need that other stuff depends on > in -- look at the thread on linux-pm where the wakelock/suspendblocker > framework has been reviewed, revised, resent repeatedly, etc.
I assume you guys would accept community submitted clean up patches right? Is there someone maintaining the MSM changes, you maybe?
> The msm7k unfortunately requires a lot of infrastructure to work given > that the baseband (a black box to us) controls much of the world. > Last time around when I tried submitting some of the core ipc support > to talk to it on the lakml, there seemed to be uncertainty about who > even would review that.
Typically you send stuff to LKML (or other mailing list) for review, it's not like only one person would be reviewing the code.
Daniel
| |