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

Bug#671200: linux-2.6: Generate leds-modules for Kirkwood Debian installer



On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +0200, Arnaud Patard wrote:

Hi,

> Simon Guinot <simon@sequanux.org> writes:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:19:43AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> >> * Simon Guinot <simon@sequanux.org> [2012-04-27 01:15]:
> >> > On LaCie boards, the leds-ns2 and leds-netxbig drivers are used to
> >> > configure the LEDs. This drivers are currently not embedded into the
> >> > network-console installer. As a consequence, it is not possible to
> >> > change the LEDs behaviour on LaCie boards when the SSH server is ready.
> >> > 
> >> > Please, consider applying the attached patch.
> >> 
> >> This patch is not correct:
> >> 
> >> > --- debian/installer/armel/package-list	(revision 18961)
> >> > +++ debian/installer/armel/package-list	(working copy)
> >> > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
> >> >  #
> >> >  Package: kernel-image
> >> >  Provides_iop32x: rtc-modules
> >> > -Provides_kirkwood: rtc-modules, jffs2-modules, zlib-modules
> >> > +Provides_kirkwood: rtc-modules, jffs2-modules, zlib-modules, leds-modules
> >> 
> >> This says that the LEDs moduleas are built-in, which is not the case.
> >> You have to create
> >> debian/installer/armel/modules/armel-kirkwood/leds-modules with a list
> >> of modules.
> >
> > You will find in attachment an updated patch.
> >
> 
> This updated version is working as advertised. I'm not seeing any
> led trigger in your patch, does this mean that built-in ones are enough?

Yes, be able to turn LEDs off/on is enough.

> 
> >> 
> >> I'm also not sure about the name leds-modules... maybe they should just
> >> be added to input-modules or something but I'll leave that to the
> >> kernel/installer team to decide.
> 
> leds are more outputs than inputs imho. From the current list of udebs,
> creating a new one sounds a little bit cleaner. Moreover one may need
> more stuff later, like new led module or trigger. There are traces of a
> beeper udeb so if we had a udeb like this one, I don't understand why we
> wouldn't have a leds udeb.
> 
> In the case I commit the patch, is there a bug asking to add support for
> this udeb into d-i or do you intend to do it ?

As soon as this patch is applied, I will fill a bug report for d-i.

Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: