Re: Debian non-x86 kernel arches
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 06:09:48PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:44:40PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > The via changes are almost guaranteed to break on x86. Any reason you
> > > can't simply assign the irqs in the arch-specific pci fixups code so
> > > the driver doesn't need to mess it? That's the way we usually deal
> > > with broken plattforms in linux.
> >
> > Sure, that would be the right way i guess. I promise to do it once i get
> > time allotment for that again, in the meantime the current code works
> > and is of use to the pegasos users, so why keep it out.
>
> Because collecting random cludges becomes a maintaince horror long term.
> I've spent half of yesterday splitting kernel-patch-debian apart and
> reviewing all parts, checking for correctnes, sending upstrea, etc..
Sure, and ? As long as i (and Jens) know what is in the powerpc kernel
patch, what is the problem ?
> That's lots of vasted effort that simply wouldn't be needed if people
> properly worked with upstream the first time.
Yeah, sure, whatever. This is an overly simplistic view of things.
> > > Which driver is that? Have you talked to Ralf Baechle to get your
> > > changes tested on mips?
> >
> > The discovery II is a northbridge controller which has a mips and ppc
> > version, and includes a gigabit ethernet controller, which has a (not
> > sure it is working though) driver for mips in 2.4. I am right now more
> > interested in having it working on ppc before contacting the mips folk
> > though about this, all in due time.
>
> Is it really that difficult not trying to break others? Even if it's
> a big ifdef wankfest it's not that difficult to make sure the driver
> is still working and can be sent to a mips person to test it. Nevermind
> talking to them would be more than helpful to find out whether they have
> a more recent version, etc..
Notice that a), i am not the author of that patch, and b) well, sure,
whatever, there is a reason that patch is not yet in the debian powerpc
patch.
> > > This is what really *fucking* annoys me. This I'm lazy and unable to
> > > talk to someone else mentality that get us tons of cludges instead of
> > > working together.
> >
> > Well, since you started this thread doing the same, you can hardly blame
> > me for it. Seriously though, i don't see what is your annoyance. It is a
> > matter of work priority, and upto recently, it was more important to
> > make sure the powerpc debian kernel worked on something else than just
> > powermacs, and that debian-installer worked fine on powerpc.
>
> Huh? I complained that you don't get out of your little
Well, sure, but you started making big plans about the new kernel
maintenance, without even bothering to find out who where the current
maintainers, and to include them in those talks. Speak about being too
lazy to talk to someone.
> kernel-patch-powerpc world. That would certainly not be less annoying
> if I didn't start that thread. Which I didn't, btw..
>
> > > It's pretty simple. By doing work right from the beginning. If you do
> > > thing sane from the start you'll have to care far less afterwards.
> >
> > Yeah sure, patches are welcome then :)
> >
> > And BTW, maybe the time you spent advocating a new centralized kernel
> > package maintenance would have been better spent helping solve some of
> > the known issue in the current powerpc kernel, and i didn't see you send
> > us patches or try to help out on that account.
>
> Feel free to send forward bugs for filled against your
> kernel-image-powerpc forward upstream. I'll pick those where I'm
> knowledgeable enough to help.
Still, the bug report is hopen, you can look at all of them, and see if
you can help, since you are all set on doing everything yourself.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: