On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:30:27AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > So the plan is to only have sunxi-3.4 on one side and a "submitted > upstream" on the other side? > > I'd welcome something intermediate, i.e. a branch that provides "the > most complete sunxi support in an uptodate kernel", and which is kept > uptodate (like sunxi-devel). > > This could hold WiP for things that aren't ready for upstream submission > (and may languish in such a state for a long time, in case noone is > sufficiently motivated to refactor it for upstream).
People are free to do what they want in their spare time. This was kind of the point of the experimental 3.10 branch, and beside Alejandro, I don't see anyone actively working on it. > > I wouldn't like sunxi-devel to become yet another vendor-BSP-like > > kernel. > > I understand that. But at the same time, many important uses of > Allwinner SoCs currently require the sunxi-3.4 kernel and the > corresponding feature may never end up upstream, yet using a 3.4 kernel > in 2020 is likely to be a source of annoyances. > > > But yeah, Boris MTD patches are elligible to sunxi-devel, they should > > definitely be in it. > > How 'bout the consumer IR patches? Yep, just as well. -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
