From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: Problem with restricted I2C algorithms in kernel 2.6.26! Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:28:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20080808112853.22adbfae@hyperion.delvare> References: <489B6A66.40605@linuxtv.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <489B6A66.40605@linuxtv.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: mkrufky@linuxtv.org Cc: sam@ravnborg.org, user.kernel@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, i2c@lm-sensors.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Michael, On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:34:30 -0400 , mkrufky@linuxtv.org wrote: > Jean Delvare wrote: > > Why not, please? A vast majority of drivers work fine that way today. I > > am still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why some other > > drivers supposedly can't be merged upstream (something better than > > "believe me, it's impossible".) > > Nobody said that a driver "...can't be merged upstream" ... but > REQUIRING a driver to be merged upstream to allow development and / or > testing is a problem, IMHO. > > If you required that all of my development happens within a git > development repository, preventing me from working against distro-kernel > xyz, then I would simply spend more time on Windows driver development > and my Linux contributions would cease. Not my goal, obviously. > External subsystem development repositories allow us to work against > stable kernels at our own pace. When driver X is ready to be merged, it > gets merged. > > With the model that you propose, "use linux-next for development" ... > well then what about testing? Who is going to test my driver if it > requires a full kernel compile? Some distributions do package linux-next. And this seems to be a very easy way to get end users to test bleeding edge code. You just tell the user to install the linux-next package and he/she's done. No need to build anything. -- Jean Delvare