[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [linux-2.6] trunk-r16272: Fix up some configs and speakup patch broken for 2.6.36-rc4

On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 08:09 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> Hi,
> I already pointed out on IRC that some CONFIG_* has to be updated for
> 2.6.36-rc4.
> See my attached patches.
> As it might be important: My linux-2.6/debian directory is from
> trunk-r16272.
> Unfortunately, the shipped speakup patch(es) are somehow broken:

I've recently subscribed to the speakup list and have been encouraging
the developers to submit the drivers to staging.

In the course of that I was told that the speakup drivers in linux-2.6
are quite outdated, and, as you've seen, I've now updated them to match
the current speakup package.

> Some days back, I looked into speakup GIT repository, so the extracted
> patch seems to be correct on first sight but I guess no more fitting
> to 2.6.36-rc4.

I needed to add one more small patch.

> From 244692cc6f6fad05d1058bf9ca123535d8014368 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:46:38 +0200

fanotify is a new API, primarily for virus checkers, and we don't
necessarily want it.  The important thing is the userland inotify
interface (INOTIFY_USER) which is still enabled.

> From 2c329cbf3c17b46f6de91f2012b96489d91facfa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:48:27 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] Unset CONFIG_MFD_WM8994


> From 52d1e96be23738ac627b3210de7cbaa11aa4a941 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:50:22 +0200
> Change from 'm' to CONFIG_INTEL_IDLE=y as it is now boolean.

Do we really trust that this driver is better than acpi_idle yet?  (And
I really hate it when driver authors can't make them work as modules.)


Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: