On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 14:12 +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote: Hi Nicolas,
> About appletouch, I don't know exactly... If there is a consensus that > the new value for ATP_THRESHOLD is better, it should probably stay > there, and maybe be sent upstream. OK. Not sure whether this then should not better be a config option controllable via sysfs. > > Apart from the (non-essential) core-temp patch, the patch that should > > really make it into mainline is applesmc. I wonder whether you plan to > > do this for 2.6.22 - such that we finally don't need any extra stuff > > anymore ? > > We can always keep some patches, even if they are non-essential (now > that I figured out how to use git, creating the series of patches for a > new kernel version is really easy). That's true but I don't see the need if all the hw is supported in vanilla linux after applesmc is in. I would rather send patches directly upstream then... > I'll work on applesmc, but don't except it for 2.6.22, as I think 2.6.21 > will be released very shortly, so the feature freeze for 2.6.22 will > happen shortly. I'm also not very sure about the way my code is written, > so it might require some important modifications. Well 2.6.21 will still take >1month to be released so you have 6 weeks I guess... > > Also, how did you find out about all these SMC keys like 'ALV0' etc ? > > By reverse-engineering the OS X driver. wow! how ? Soeren ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Mactel-linux-devel mailing list Mactel-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mactel-linux-devel
