From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keith Packard Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] MacBook Air patch sequence (v2) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:10:34 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20110923085243.6e4b7b4c@jbarnes-x220> <1317344993-24945-1-git-send-email-keithp@keithp.com> <20110930033356.GA11621@kroah.com> <20110930135705.GC18646@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110930135705.GC18646@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH Cc: Dave Airlie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:57:05 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > No, actually this makes it easier for -stable as each individual patch > fixes a problem, so in re-reading them, I have no objection for them to > go into -stable. Ok, cool. Splitting these up was a pain. > Would these also work on 3.0? They won't apply cleanly, but yes, they should be useful there. > > I'd rather have a 'regular' PC; getting Debian installed on this machine > > was no picnic. >=20 > Due to UEFI stuff? Or something else? UEFI, the lack of CD booting, and the general 'Steve knows best' attitude of the hardware. > I agree, it is a very nice hardware form factor that no other > manufacturer can seem to duplicate for the same (well, any) price these > days. Yeah, PC vendors clearly aren't making hardware for us anymore. =2D-=20 keith.packard@intel.com --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFOhgYaQp8BWwlsTdMRAgcbAKDIDoEWN9yxEgwpK/U+Oe4rMC1oSQCfZlTU yOn4avKU/mDy6GznIQN8GjI= =K1sj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--