On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:51:52AM +0000, Horms wrote: > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, charset: us-ascii, 59 lines --] > > > > This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said: > >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:11:44PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:20:34 +0100 > >> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > i, wearing my powerpc debian kernel maintainer hat, know that > >> > > it is not needed on powerpc. > >> > > >> > This indicates that you are talking about a single kernel build - the > >> > one provided by the kernel team, not powerpc kernels in general. > >> > >> Jonas, can you please explain me how you can come to the conclusion that > >> ide-generic is *NEEDED* on powerpc, if there is at least one kernel config > >> which does not have it and works perfectly ? > >> > >> I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and failing to even > >> try > >> to understand the issue at hand ? > > > > Oh look, why are you still fighting about this? It seems to me that the > > real problem is that the via module doesn't declare a relation to > > ide-generic in situations where it actually does need it. Why not fix > > the kernel, so that yaird doesn't have to bend over backwards? Not that > > I really care either way, but it does seem to me to be cleaner to fix > > the underlying problem rather than adding increasingly nonsensical > > special case code somewhere else to work around it. > > Can someone cook up a patch for this and send it upstream and/or here?
I guess this means someone needs to investigate it with the hardware that is broken in the first place. Nobody seemed interested in doing so, and i don't have broken via-ide x86 hardware myself. Now, can we please get the borken hack in yaird be backed out or at least disabled on powerpc as my patch proposed ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
