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 11:37:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20080808113753.03f49efe@hyperion.delvare> References: <5ab239b10807161233i6c1c4d0we01ea1b8e6ccaa5b@mail.gmail.com> <20080807131357.59399ddf@hyperion.delvare> <20080807181416.5de4ce6d@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Trent Piepho Cc: "D. Kelly" , Sam Ravnborg , "mailing list: linux-kernel" , Linux I2C List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Trent, On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:41:10 -0700 (PDT), Trent Piepho wrote: > Expecting every developer to keep abreast of linux-next and the tens of > thousands of patches it gets just isn't realisitic. > > The embedded platforms I develop on won't run linux-next. Continuously > porting them to linux-next is simply impossible. The man hours required to > do that would be staggering. Once again a "believe me it's impossible" without any good reason given. I fail to see why embedded platforms would be any different from other platforms or subsystem trees. Please enlighten me. > The pool of testers available to a driver that requires running linux-next > is going to be orders of magnitude less that a driver that can be compiled > out of tree against 2.6.19 to 2.6.27. Except that distributions start packaging linux-next, while in general they don't package out-of-tree versions of packages that are also available in the kernel tree. If the v4l-dvb tip was in linux-next (it isn't, is it?), I suspect that you would get many more testers than you have at the time being. Which doesn't mean that you can't additionally provide out-of-tree drivers for older kernels if you think it's worth the additional effort (I don't think it is, but it's up to whoever does the work.) -- Jean Delvare