Paul Mackerras wrote: >Dean Matsen writes: > > > >>Somewhere in this discussion thread I saw that the 2.4 kernel is closed for >>patches (I just joined this list, so I didn't know that). >> >> > >Well, that's not strictly true, we will continue to fix things that >are broken, but I would prefer than any new development (e.g. support >for new boards or devices) happened in 2.5. It's a bit disappointing >that 8xx still doesn't compile in 2.5. I don't have any 8xx hardware >to test on so I have been relying on others to update it. > > Ok, in that case I do have ONE thing that I know should be fixed, but I haven't seen any response on it, so I am wondering if anyone noticed it at all. See
http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-dev/200307/msg00085.html This affects existing support. It's so simple that: a) It's kind of annoying to 8xx people b) probably everyone will figure it out c) there is really no risk in fixing it. > > >>Would it help if I came up with a 2.5 patch for fec.c? I made a few minor >>changes that will make it behave friendlier for all [to whom it is not >>already being totally friendly], and I see the 2.5 kernel could use some >>of the same changes. >> >> > >Excellent idea. :) > >Paul. > > > > > I would love to see the kernel perform well for mpc8xx users right out of the box, so I am highly motivated to contibute. I'll focus on the 2.5 kernel (I'm surprised to hear it doesn't compile). ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
