On Thursday 15 February 2007 9:12 pm, David Brownell wrote:
> On Thursday 15 February 2007 8:38 pm, Len Brown wrote:
>
> > So I've taken Andi's advice and checked in the patches below.
>
> OK; that simplifies things for me, good! I can discard that patch
> (broken by Andi's pcspkr change
On Thursday 15 February 2007 9:12 pm, David Brownell wrote:
On Thursday 15 February 2007 8:38 pm, Len Brown wrote:
So I've taken Andi's advice and checked in the patches below.
OK; that simplifies things for me, good! I can discard that patch
(broken by Andi's pcspkr change anyway), stop
On Thursday 15 February 2007 8:38 pm, Len Brown wrote:
> So I've taken Andi's advice and checked in the patches below.
OK; that simplifies things for me, good! I can discard that patch
(broken by Andi's pcspkr change anyway), stop worring about whether
most folk will even see that driver, and
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 18:47, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 3:20 pm, Len Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > I still need to resubmit the patch, for X86_PC, which defines the platform
> > > device in the (common) case where PNPACPI isn't defined.
> >
> > CONFIG_PNPACPI=y is
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 18:47, David Brownell wrote:
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 3:20 pm, Len Brown wrote:
I still need to resubmit the patch, for X86_PC, which defines the platform
device in the (common) case where PNPACPI isn't defined.
CONFIG_PNPACPI=y is not the common
On Thursday 15 February 2007 8:38 pm, Len Brown wrote:
So I've taken Andi's advice and checked in the patches below.
OK; that simplifies things for me, good! I can discard that patch
(broken by Andi's pcspkr change anyway), stop worring about whether
most folk will even see that driver, and
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 3:20 pm, Len Brown wrote:
> >
> > I still need to resubmit the patch, for X86_PC, which defines the platform
> > device in the (common) case where PNPACPI isn't defined.
>
> CONFIG_PNPACPI=y is not the common case?
It's certainly not in the defconfig for x86-64.
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:55, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 10:09 am, Dave Jones wrote:
> > This option is useful for all of the X86 subarchs afaik (and especially
> > X86_GENERICARCH).
>
> You're right ... _potentially_ useful, which is the same standard used
> in
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 10:09 am, Dave Jones wrote:
> This option is useful for all of the X86 subarchs afaik (and especially
> X86_GENERICARCH).
You're right ... _potentially_ useful, which is the same standard used
in most of the other cases. The "X86_PC" is debris from an early version
This option is useful for all of the X86 subarchs afaik (and especially
X86_GENERICARCH).
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.20.noarch/drivers/rtc/Kconfig~2007-02-14 13:07:07.0
-0500
+++ linux-2.6.20.noarch/drivers/rtc/Kconfig 2007-02-14
This option is useful for all of the X86 subarchs afaik (and especially
X86_GENERICARCH).
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.6.20.noarch/drivers/rtc/Kconfig~2007-02-14 13:07:07.0
-0500
+++ linux-2.6.20.noarch/drivers/rtc/Kconfig 2007-02-14
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 10:09 am, Dave Jones wrote:
This option is useful for all of the X86 subarchs afaik (and especially
X86_GENERICARCH).
You're right ... _potentially_ useful, which is the same standard used
in most of the other cases. The X86_PC is debris from an early version
of
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:55, David Brownell wrote:
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 10:09 am, Dave Jones wrote:
This option is useful for all of the X86 subarchs afaik (and especially
X86_GENERICARCH).
You're right ... _potentially_ useful, which is the same standard used
in most of
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 3:20 pm, Len Brown wrote:
I still need to resubmit the patch, for X86_PC, which defines the platform
device in the (common) case where PNPACPI isn't defined.
CONFIG_PNPACPI=y is not the common case?
It's certainly not in the defconfig for x86-64. And it's
14 matches
Mail list logo