On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 10:39 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Ben Hutchings <email@example.com> writes: > > On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 21:21 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > > >> Do you think an exception may be possible for this driver? If so, I can > >> prepare a patch proposal for review. > > > > Please do. Also, report this as a bug. > > I understand that the kernel team has lots of more important bugs to > take care of than wishlist bugs, but I'd really appreciate it if someone > commented on http://bugs.debian.org/577264 Adding drivers is easy though. :-) > I am still unsure about the preferred way to provide such a driver > patch. The first version attached to the bug was just a copy of the > upstream version with the necessary modifications to make it build under > 2.6.32. > > I have now done the job identifying which commits created the current > upstream version, and instead provided a patch set consisting of cherry > picked upstream commits. Is this preferred, even though it results in a > high number of patches (120 to be exact)? It keeps a lot of meta data, > which I guess is useful. [...] We can use either form. In this case, where there were several drivers involved, your patch set was very helpful. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part