From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265379AbTFUVsk (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:48:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265390AbTFUVsj (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:48:39 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:63758 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265379AbTFUVsi (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:48:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:02:37 +0100 From: Russell King To: Jan Rychter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OT] Troll Tech Message-ID: <20030621230237.D28984@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Jan Rychter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <03061908145500.25179@tabby> <20030619141443.GR29247@fs.tum.de> <20030619165916.GA14404@work.bitmover.com> <20030620001217.G6248@almesberger.net> <20030620120910.3f2cb001.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030620142436.GB14404@work.bitmover.com> <20030620162719.GA4368@hh.idb.hist.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jan@rychter.com on Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 02:49:48PM -0700 X-Message-Flag: Your copy of Microsoft Outlook is vulnerable to viruses. See www.mutt.org for more details. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 02:49:48PM -0700, Jan Rychter wrote: > And I know that I won't be able to use 2.4 much longer -- very soon > support for new hardware will be in 2.5/2.6 only. See cpufreq for an > example. Picking up on this specific point... It may be worth discussing this issue a little more and finding out whether Marcelo would be willing to take it (maybe for .22 or .23?) It has been in the 2.4-ac trees for some time without much problem, and it can be configured out. The only real sting in the tale is that it won't have the sysfs interfaces, because there's probably no way in hell that sysfs would appear in 2.4. Since it is in 2.4-ac, this problem has already been solved. Personally, I'd like to see cpufreq go into 2.4 since its a requirement for some ARM platforms. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html