Re: AMD/ATI SB700 support to Debian
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:03:33PM +0800, Shane Huang wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> This is Shane.
>
> We have four patches for AMD/ATI SB700, and we will full support SB700
> until 2.6.23-rc1. The four patches have been accepted by kernel org and
> the applied kernel version are listed as below:
>
> 1.SMBus device ID 2.6.23-rc1
> Upstream commit:
> http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/linux-2.6/jdelvare-i2c/i2c-piix4-add-ATI
> -SB700-support.patch
>
> 2.IDE device ID 2.6.22
> Upstream commit:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commi
> t;h=6c6a2a8d201b4f8fd54167802da5ddbe08abd744
>
> 3.SATA device ID 2.6.22
> Upstream commit:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commi
> t;h=2bcfdde6767f2f07891d2753c25220012fe5e6d2
>
> 4.Combined mode 2.6.22
> Upstream commit:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commi
> t;h=823777181b4c0200923dcb026efa5b37f55c0ecf
>
> Because the patch for SMBus device ID is sent after the merge window for
> 2.6.22, and as a result it is queued for the next kernel version:
> 2.6.23.
> it will be merged in Linus' tree between 2.6.22 (final) and 2.6.23-rc1.
I took a look at these patches, and they are certainly something we'd
consider for a point release of the existing Debian release if they
can be backported to the 2.6.18 base in such a way that the changes
will only affect new hardware - since they are mostly just adding ids,
etc, that might be the case.
Do you know of any reason these changes wouldn't work on a 2.6.18
base? Would you be able to run QA on one of our daily builds if I
pointed you to snapshot debs with these changes?
The combined mode patch for sb700 depends on a quirk that was added
for sb600 after 2.6.18. I could of course backport this quirk only for
sb700, but is there a good reason for adding it for sb600 as well?
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=ab17443a3df35abe4b7529e83511a591aa7384f3
--
dann frazier
Reply to: