Bug#711585: [linux-image-3.9-1-loongson-2f] linux 3.9.4-1 for loongson-2f doesn't halt/reboot/suspend-disk.

2013-06-07 Thread Javier Vasquez
Package: linux-image-3.9-1-loongson-2f Version: 3.9.4-1 Severity: Important When rebooting, halting or suspending to disk on a mini-pc with loongson-2f, it just hangs, printing a weird trace. Fortunately dmessage kept such trace: Jun 7 23:34:30 mini-1 kernel: [2.18] EXT4-fs (sda6): wr

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Dennis Lan (dlan) wrote: > > > On Saturday, June 8, 2013, luke.leighton wrote: >> >> right - too many people contributed to this, input from jon smirl, >> wookie, maxime, tomasz, henrik, i've made a start here and will >> continue editing: this is notes for me to p

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Dennis Lan (dlan)
On Saturday, June 8, 2013, luke.leighton wrote: > right - too many people contributed to this, input from jon smirl, > wookie, maxime, tomasz, henrik, i've made a start here and will > continue editing: this is notes for me to put forward an agenda for > discussion: > > http://hands.com/~lkcl/allw

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 07:26:49PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote: >> maxime: we need to talk :) >> >> please tell me in 4 or 5 sentences what you've managed to do so far, >> expanding a little on what thomas says below, more specifically what

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Maxime Ripard
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 07:26:49PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote: > maxime: we need to talk :) > > please tell me in 4 or 5 sentences what you've managed to do so far, > expanding a little on what thomas says below, more specifically what > it achieves and/or allows rather than technically what it

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:02:03PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote: >> well, tough. get me up to speed, *fast*. > > No, not unless you're willing to *pay* someone to spend time teaching you, there's not enough time. 2 days left. >

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Maxime will reply to this in more details, but I believe the status is: > > * Interrupt controller is working. > * Clock drivers are working. > * Pinctrl is working. > * GPIO is working. > * Timer is working. > * UART is working > *

IPQ Module

2013-06-07 Thread Ozgur
Hello all; I tested 3.2.0-4 kernel on Debian 7.0 Wheezy operating system. Debian Wheezy being used 3.2.0-4 kernel. # uname -ar Linux snort.test.lan 3.2.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.2.41-2+deb7u2 x86_64 GNU/Linux kernel version I understand; the new kernel version no used "ip_queue" module, right? I

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:18:14PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >> > Luke Leighton on the other hand is demanding that we >> >> no demands have be

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
right - too many people contributed to this, input from jon smirl, wookie, maxime, tomasz, henrik, i've made a start here and will continue editing: this is notes for me to put forward an agenda for discussion: http://hands.com/~lkcl/allwinner_linux_proposal.txt i'm setting a rule that each secti

Bug#649748: linux-2.6: fixes upstream packaging when cross-compiling

2013-06-07 Thread Hector Oron
Hello, 2013/6/7 Moritz Muehlenhoff : > Hector, > this hasn't landed in current kernel.org git, did you submit it upstream? No, I did not submit it upstream, also it seems to be incomplete, and it misses armhf architecture. Please, allow me few days to work on it and re-submit updated patch to De

RE: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread joem
Confused yes - innocent mistake - 50% yes. I see now the posts are cc'd from arm-netbook mailing lists to many other mailing lists with different standards for noise. Apologies for not seeing that. arm-netbook list 'belongs' to luke, but generally the noise level is very low here and its aim is

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:18:14PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > Luke Leighton on the other hand is demanding that we > > no demands have been made, russell: i've informed you of an immovable > deadline which wi

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:02:03PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote: > well, tough. get me up to speed, *fast*. No, not unless you're willing to *pay* someone to spend time teaching you, because you are asking to be *taught* about the current situation, so you're asking someone to do some _work_ _for_

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:04:26PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > By demanding > > a-a-ah, no demands made. " well, tough. get me up to speed, *fast*. please stop wasting time like this: get me up to speed." That is a demand. Stop tro

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Wookey
+++ Maxime Ripard [2013-06-06 19:28 +0200]: > Hi everyone, > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:00:00AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > > Listen, Allwinner isn't working in a vacuum, believe it or not. I've > > talked to them, so has Arnd and other people working on ARM, including > > Maxime Ripard, who

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Tomasz Figa
On Friday 07 of June 2013 20:02:03 luke.leighton wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >Seeing from your posts you don't have any knowledge on how Linux kernel > > > > development works > > check back to 2004. $ git log --oneline --author="Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton"

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:18:14PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > Luke Leighton on the other hand is demanding that we > > no demands have been made, russell: i've informed you of an immovable > deadline which wi

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:26:49 +0100, luke.leighton wrote: > >> > Have you noticed that it is already the case in mainline? >> >> i knew there was a little bit, but not the extent of the commits. > > Then you could probably use a b

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Wookey wrote: > OK, this sounds good. Could you say who the allwinner engineers are? [cross-over: i asked him if he'd be happy to let me know privately, so i have at least some context when speaking to the Directors] > I > guess it's quite a large organisation, s

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > Luke, > > I want only one thing from you at this time. See below. > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM, luke.leighton > wrote: >> but the Directors of Allwinner aren't been kept in the loop, >> here: that's my job, to get them up-to-

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >Seeing from your posts you don't have any knowledge on how Linux kernel > development works check back to 2004. > and even on how Allwinner's cooperation with our > community looks (and seem to be completely closed to our effort of showing >

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > Luke Leighton on the other hand is demanding that we no demands have been made, russell: i've informed you of an immovable deadline which will pass beyond which the opportunity being presented is lost. > (Linux kernel > developer

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 06 June 2013, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> So yes, Allwinner has an evil vendor tree (c), with a solution similar yet >> inferior (because not generic enough) to the device tree, but they show >> interest on going down the mainline road

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > I should also add that Allwinner not only talked to us already, oo! great! can you please [privately, not publicly] let me know who that is, so i can let the Directors know, so that they can follow up? > but also > expressed interest in

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:13 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM, luke.leighton >> wrote: >>> augh. ok. solutions. what are the solutions here? >> >> Luke if you really want to fix this a good solution is to

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Thomas Petazzoni
Hello, On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:26:49 +0100, luke.leighton wrote: > > Have you noticed that it is already the case in mainline? > > i knew there was a little bit, but not the extent of the commits. Then you could probably use a bit of your time to read the kernel commit logs rather than writing h

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Olof Johansson
Luke, I want only one thing from you at this time. See below. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM, luke.leighton wrote: > but the Directors of Allwinner aren't been kept in the loop, > here: that's my job, to get them up-to-speed. The one job I would love for you to do instead of all this tr

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 02:49:28PM +, joem wrote: > > > SoC vendors are free to join the discussion, and many SoC vendors are part > > > of the kernel community, so calling this unilateral is plain wrong. > > > > you're free to believe that, vladimir. i've explained why that > > hasn't happe

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
thomas i _very_ briefly spotted this when i was extremely busy yesterday, and i'm grateful to the 2 or 3 people who've given me the keywords and/or links to catch up. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Tomasz Figa, > > On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 02:01:14 +0200, Tomasz Figa w

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 07/06/2013 10:06, luke.leighton wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote: >>> luke.leighton wrote: 3 days remaining on the clock. >>> >>> what catastrophic thing will happen when the time runs out? >> n

Bug#600031: marked as done (updating kernel causes slow write speed to raid)

2013-06-07 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:49:13 +0200 with message-id <20130607174913.gb21...@inutil.org> and subject line Re: updating kernel causes slow write speed to raid has caused the Debian Bug report #600031, regarding updating kernel causes slow write speed to raid to be marked as done. This

Processed: Re: linux-2.6: fixes upstream packaging when cross-compiling

2013-06-07 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 649748 src:linux Bug #649748 [linux-2.6] linux-2.6: fixes upstream packaging when cross-compiling Bug reassigned from package 'linux-2.6' to 'src:linux'. No longer marked as found in versions linux-2.6/2.6.39-3. Ignoring request to alter

Bug#649748: linux-2.6: fixes upstream packaging when cross-compiling

2013-06-07 Thread Moritz Muehlenhoff
reassign 649748 src:linux thanks On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:18:16PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > found 649748 linux-2.6/2.6.39-3 > tags 649748 + upstream > quit > > Hi Hector, > > Hector Oron wrote: > > > Do you think is sane to send this patch to upstream? > > Yep, sounds like the sane t

Bug#711526: mmc0: Timeout waiting for hardware interrupt.

2013-06-07 Thread pepelopez
Package: src:linux Version: 3.2.41-2+deb7u2 Followup-For: Bug #711526 Card reader not work. 0b:06.0 CardBus bridge: O2 Micro, Inc. OZ711SP1 Memory CardBus Controller (rev 01) 0b:06.2 SD Host controller: O2 Micro, Inc. Integrated MMC/SD Controller (rev 02) 0b:06.3 Mass storage controller: O2 Micro

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Stephen Warren
On 06/07/2013 02:02 AM, luke.leighton wrote: > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > >> If companies are going to go off and invent the square wheel, and that >> makes *them* suffer the loss of being able to merge back into the >> mainline kernel, thereby making *the

Bug#711539: [src:linux] No sound on headphones with snd_hda_intel (working on 3.8)

2013-06-07 Thread Sebastián Cruz
Package: src:linux Version: linux-image-3.9-1-amd64 Severity: normal --- Please enter the report below this line. --- When booting with 3.9 I get no sound on headphones (it works through speakers). It also doesn't work with 3.10-rc4 from experimental. It works with 3.2 and 3.8. Please let me kn

Bug#711526: mmc0: Timeout waiting for hardware interrupt.

2013-06-07 Thread Andrei POPESCU
Control: reassign -1 linux-image-3.2.0-4-amd64 Control: found -1 3.2.41-2+deb7u2 On Vi, 07 iun 13, 14:57:49, pepelopez wrote: > Package: 3.2.41-2+deb7u2 > Version: linux-image-3.2.0-4-amd64 Dear pepelopez, You mixed up the package name with the version, which is why: 1. your report was filled a

Processed: Re: Bug#711526: mmc0: Timeout waiting for hardware interrupt.

2013-06-07 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > reassign -1 linux-image-3.2.0-4-amd64 Bug #711526 [linux-image-3.2.0-4-amd64] mmc0: Timeout waiting for hardware interrupt. Ignoring request to reassign bug #711526 to the same package > found -1 3.2.41-2+deb7u2 Bug #711526 [linux-image-3.2.0-4-amd64] mmc0: Timeout

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread joem
> > SoC vendors are free to join the discussion, and many SoC vendors are part > > of the kernel community, so calling this unilateral is plain wrong. > > you're free to believe that, vladimir. i've explained why that > hasn't happened, in prior messages. can we move forward, please? I prefer

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:52:43AM +0100, luke.leighton wrote: > coming back to what you said earlier: i'm formulating what to say to > allwinner [and need to pre-send something by monday so that they can > consider it before the meeting]. so far, it consists of: > > * device-tree is what the li

Processed: your mail

2013-06-07 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign #711526 linux-image-3.2.0-4-amd64 3.2.41-2+deb7u2 Bug #711526 [3.2.41-2+deb7u2] mmc0: Timeout waiting for hardware interrupt. Warning: Unknown package '3.2.41-2+deb7u2' Bug reassigned from package '3.2.41-2+deb7u2' to 'linux-image-3.2.0-4

Alquiler vacacional de apartamentos en Vera (Almería)

2013-06-07 Thread Alquiler en Vera
Buenos días: Tenemos disponibles para alquilar 14 casas adosadas y varios apartamentos Vera (Almería) en el entorno de Puerto Rey. Los alquila directamente la propiedad, sin intermediarios, y desde 250 euros la semana. Si quiere que le mandemos todos los detalles puede contactar con nosotros en

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Bjørn Mork
Tomasz Figa writes: > Seeing from your posts you don't have any knowledge on how Linux kernel > development works and even on how Allwinner's cooperation with our > community looks (and seem to be completely closed to our effort of showing > you the reality), so I'm not sure if you are the rig

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Henrik Nordström
fre 2013-06-07 klockan 09:02 +0100 skrev luke.leighton: > ok. so. we come back to the question again: what shall i propose to > them that they consider doing, and what benefit would it be to them to > do so? Just tell them that the kernel is moving to a different configuration syntax called De

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Barry Song
2013/6/7 Olof Johansson : > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:13 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM, luke.leighton >> wrote: >>> augh. ok. solutions. what are the solutions here? >> >> Luke if you really want to fix this a good solution is to have >> Allwinner join Linaro

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:48:22AM +0200, Vladimir Pantelic wrote: > luke.leighton wrote: >> 3 days remaining on the clock. > > what catastrophic thing will happen when the time runs out? Maybe the world will explode into tiny small bits? Probably not. I suspect nothing of any relevance to us.

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:40:37AM +0200, Vladimir Pantelic wrote: > luke.leighton wrote:> so. > > > > coming back to what you said earlier: i'm formulating what to say to > > allwinner [and need to pre-send something by monday so that they can > > consider it before the meeting]. so far, it c

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:02:43AM +0100, luke.leighton wrote: > ok. so. we come back to the question again: what shall i propose to > them that they consider doing, and what benefit would it be to them to > do so? > > i cannot go to them and say "you have to do this [insert proposal > here]"

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Vladimir Pantelic
luke.leighton wrote:> so. > > coming back to what you said earlier: i'm formulating what to say to > allwinner [and need to pre-send something by monday so that they can > consider it before the meeting]. so far, it consists of: > > * device-tree is what the linux kernel community has come up

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Alexandre Belloni
On 07/06/2013 10:06, luke.leighton wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote: >> luke.leighton wrote: >>> 3 days remaining on the clock. >> >> what catastrophic thing will happen when the time runs out? > no catastrophe, vladimir: all that happens is that an opportunity i

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote: > luke.leighton wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Vladimir Pantelic >> wrote: >> >>> 4 days? WTF? since when did setting an ultimatum to the kernel >>> community work? >> >> >> i was only informed of the opportunity 2 days ago,

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > If companies are going to go off and invent the square wheel, and that > makes *them* suffer the loss of being able to merge back into the > mainline kernel, thereby making *their* job of moving forward with > their kernel versions

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:49:38 luke.leighton wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tomasz Figa > wrote: >> > Luke, >> > >> > On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:24:57 luke.leighton wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread Vladimir Pantelic
luke.leighton wrote: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote: 4 days? WTF? since when did setting an ultimatum to the kernel community work? i was only informed of the opportunity 2 days ago, vladimir. this is an important meeting. of course the linux kernel community is

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread luke.leighton
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote: > 4 days? WTF? since when did setting an ultimatum to the kernel > community work? i was only informed of the opportunity 2 days ago, vladimir. this is an important meeting. of course the linux kernel community is entirely free to: * c