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

Bug#680699: marked as done (unblock: flash-kernel/3.1)

Your message dated Sun, 8 Jul 2012 13:48:44 -0600
with message-id <20120708194844.GA22980@spike.0x539.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#680699: unblock: flash-kernel/3.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #680699,
regarding unblock: flash-kernel/3.1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
680699: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=680699
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception

Please unblock package flash-kernel

Hello,

  flash-kernel/3.1 adds device tree support for Dreamplug device (used by
  freedombox).

  Dreamplug support has been backported into linux/3.2.21-1, which we expect
  it to get into wheezy sometime.

  Therefore, it would be really nice if we can get flash-kernel/3.1 in wheezy.

unblock flash-kernel/3.1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-686-pae (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=ca_ES.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ca_ES.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 10:44:47AM +0200, Arnaud Patard wrote:
> > my only concern is that /proc/device-tree/model takes precedence over
> > /proc/cpuinfo in any case with no fallback to the latter. So if any ARM SoC
> > gets device-tree enabled by a backport it might potentially need a change to
> > flash-kernel, if the "Hardware" string does not match up with what the model
> > file delivers.
> no. With DT, the Hardware string doesn't change with the model but with
> the SoC. For instance, all kirkwood systems booting with DT have :

Yeah, I was being imprecise. I said "delivers" when I meant "delivered".
I.e. that the device-tree enablement actually changes the Hardware name
and does not give the same token that was previously in there in model.

Anyway unblocked.

Cheers
Philipp Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: