From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758610Ab1I3OFt (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:05:49 -0400 Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:56877 "EHLO out3.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754466Ab1I3OFs (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:05:48 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: +g8FRVZoL+EKYi82nz3JNvLjqaUj6QgJeZ21OZPpKwfH 1317391547 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:57:05 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Keith Packard Cc: Dave Airlie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] MacBook Air patch sequence (v2) Message-ID: <20110930135705.GC18646@kroah.com> References: <20110923085243.6e4b7b4c@jbarnes-x220> <1317344993-24945-1-git-send-email-keithp@keithp.com> <20110930033356.GA11621@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 01:58:29AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:33:56 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > Are these really all -stable material? > > I think just the sequence that actually makes the machine work; the > scarier patches are those which reduce the mode setting time from 5-10s > down to .7s. > > Is this stretching the bounds of what is acceptable for -stable? Would > it look better as a single patch, instead of 14 separate ones? 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. Would these also work on 3.0? > > I'm all for enabling new hardware like this, and overall, the patches > > aren't that bad, just want to verify this. > > Let me know what you think; they'll be queued for 3.2 once they've > gotten review and (I hope) more testing. It's Jesse's fault there are > so many little patches; he asked me to split things up into separate > functional changes. It's either that, or I'm just looking to increase > the number of patches I have in the kernel. > > > And, I do have to tell you, "curses, now I have no excuse to not buy > > that laptop!" > > I'd rather have a 'regular' PC; getting Debian installed on this machine > was no picnic. Due to UEFI stuff? Or something else? > But, I haven't seen anything else in this form factor that includes a > display port connector. 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. greg k-h