On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 05:29:21PM -0700, Nelson Castillo wrote: >> > According to my sources, Openmoko will continue to support kernel >> > maintenance and contribution to upstream. Nelson will be in charge of >> > this. >> >> "In charge" means that now I will be doing time-consuming things (such >> as help preparing patches for upstream). Now we will need more help >> from the community for patch review. I will also apply community >> patches and get the blame if things break. > > What about U-Boot? For example, I posted a patch to make U-Boot able to > load kernels from above 4 GB on SDHC cards: > > https://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/openmoko-kernel/2009-March/009573.html > > I will, time permitting, post more patches for things like > > - automatic kernel size detection for NAND flash. > - reiserfs support (just needs to be enabled, AFAIK). > - reducing the time you need to hold POWER to get to the menu. > > Also, recent test results > https://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2009-March/044553.html > suggest that it is probably possible to bring up the boot menu with reduced > backlight even when only 100 mA is available.
This sounds very good. Could you help us decide what goes into u-boot? My heuristic for this proposal: It's much better if you decide it than if I do it :-) Let's not worry about the repository/permissions now. I could just apply the patches you (and perhaps someone else) say are OK and if the volume of patches somehow grows we can use GIT as a DCVS or something to make things easier. Later we would find a way to create the snapshots or we can link to the snapshots compiled and tested by someone. Any cons? Werner, what do you think about the U-boot patches and about the idea in this email?
