From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse To: Jim Nelson In-Reply-To: <415CD869.7070607@verizon.net> References: <415CD869.7070607@verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:05:44 +0100 Message-Id: <1096621544.4828.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: 2.6.8.1 compile failed. List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 00:09 -0400, Jim Nelson wrote: > A question from a relative newbie (just getting started in kernel > hacking) - is there a focus on 2.6 development exclusively in this list > or is there some attempt to maintain 2.4 compatibility? Although I can > understand either way, I'd like to know if there needs to be an effort > to maintain backwards compatibility. There's maybe an _attempt_ but no _effort_. That is; if we can easily choose to make changes in a way which doesn't make it break on 2.4 we will, but we won't go to any _trouble_. The 2.4 kernel is an old, stable kernel. If it works for you that's great and you should continue using it. If it _doesn't_ then you should be using 2.6. > Patch to drivers/mtd/chips/amd_flash.c included. I left that broken on purpose. That driver has been obsoleted by jedec_probe and the CFI command set driver. -- dwmw2