From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: Help with Installation Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 17:22:42 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040403172242.D5553@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <200404031342.34522.ozeki@simnet.is> <20040403145045.GV19001@poupinou.org> <20040403171633.610cc960.frx@firenze.linux.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040403171633.610cc960.frx@firenze.linux.it>; from frx@firenze.linux.it on Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 05:16:33PM +0200 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Francesco Poli Cc: cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 05:16:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 16:50:45 +0200 Bruno Ducrot wrote: > > > tar xzvfp cpufreq-...tar.gz > > cd cpufreq > > ./patchin.sh /path/to/kernel/sources > > > > Do *not* remove the cpufreq directory that was unpacked. > > Why did you set up such a strange procedure? > What are the advantages over a simple patch like the old ones found in > http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/projects/cpufreq/ ? > > I'd say a gzipped (or bzip2ed) patch file would be much more easy to > apply (especially with automatic tools such as Debian kernel-package, > that is, make-kpkg), but of course I may be wrong... > > Could you please explain the rationale behind such a choice? We don't have the (massive) resources to be able to generate a patch for every single kernel version which someone may want to apply the cpufreq code to from the CVS. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/ 2.6 Serial core