From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D24DDEBE for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:30:45 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <46B89C10.7090507@genesi-usa.com> References: <200708020440.l724edCT290676@shell01.TheWorld.com> <46B79562.9020202@genesi-usa.com> <46B89C10.7090507@genesi-usa.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <909c5e405e5cd26bca3aff13fe55adbc@kernel.crashing.org> From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Pegasos keyboard detection Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 18:30:35 +0200 To: Matt Sealey Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Alan Curry , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> That's hardly the only reason. But yeah, that's one way to >> implement the workaround, but _we_ (the Linux community) cannot >> do it like that (easily) for all users. > > But you're the guy who told us our firmware sucks and we should fix our > firmware Yes, and? You _should_ fix your firmware, it is buggy after all. Esp. back then as it wasn't shipping yet. > rather than clutter Linux with too many fixups. Also, putting fixups in the wrapper is a wholly different thing from putting fixups deep inside the kernel code proper. > Linux is already a bad enough moving target, and none of these fixes > help > other operating systems or developers, if we only patch Linux, But that's not Linux' concern. You might care, we don't. Is this so hard to understand? > 1) the reports as we had when Efika was released and continually levied > against Pegasos firmware, that the firmware is broken and must be fixed > to comply, and no fixes will be considered because "bplan sucks and > must > fix it" > > 2) As long as the patches are 2 lines big, you will allow them in, > because > it is too much for a user to update firmware or run a script to boot? Our only two concerns are what is best on technical grounds, and what is best for our users. > Would you guys rather we shipped a boot script that ran the OS, fixed > all these issues in-place in-firmware, so Linux did not have to have > these > workarounds, Sure, if you can do that, that would be great. Segher