From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Tobias Schandinat Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] viafb: Do not probe for LVDS/TMDS on OLPC XO-1.5 Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 02:42:52 +0200 Message-ID: <4BBFC98C.5010805@gmx.de> References: <1270746946-12467-1-git-send-email-corbet@lwn.net> <1270746946-12467-9-git-send-email-corbet@lwn.net> <4BBF9EE7.50707@gmx.de> <20100409181942.175b375a@bike.lwn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100409181942.175b375a@bike.lwn.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Harald Welte , JosephChan@via.com.tw, ScottFang@viatech.com.cn, Deepak Saxena , linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Jonathan Corbet schrieb: > On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 23:40:55 +0200 > Florian Tobias Schandinat wrote: > >> I don't like the idea of OLPC specific code. Isn't there any way to >> speed this up in general? > > Architecture-specific code happens. OLPCs are wired differently; if > you go trying to do LVDS out those GPIO ports on an OLPC, you'll not > end up talking to the hardware you think you're talking to. The best > thing to do is to avoid it altogether. *sigh* I feared it would be something like this. >> There is not yet even an option for OLPC_XO_1_5 (in contrast to >> CONFIG_OLPC) in mainline. Is such a thing planned? > > Yes, it is. That's part of the remaining OLPC support code which has > also been brought forward to 2.6.34 with the intention of mainlining it. > >> I can't really see anything that would speak for accepting this patch >> now in current mainline, sorry. > > If you can come up with a better solution to the problem, I'm all > ears. But without it you'll have a hard time running mainline kernels > on XO 1.5 systems. It is all coming, but the OLPC folks are scrambling > to get everything together; I don't think we really need to make things > harder for them. Sadly no as you probably know the OLPC hardware much better than me. However I do not intend to give the OLPC folks a hard time. > That said, machine_is_olpc() is properly defined for all > configurations, so the #ifdefs can (and should) come out. I'm not sure I get you right here. If you talk about removing the defines and only letting the machine check that is something that I would accept now. If this is not what you meant I think it would be better to move this patch to the series adding the config option. Thanks, Florian Tobias Schandinat