Re: [PATCH 00/24] MacBook Air patch sequence (v2)

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 01:58:29AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:33:56 -0700, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Are these really all -stable material?
> 
> I think just the sequence that actually makes the machine work; the
> scarier patches are those which reduce the mode setting time from 5-10s
> down to .7s.
> 
> Is this stretching the bounds of what is acceptable for -stable? Would
> it look better as a single patch, instead of 14 separate ones?

No, actually this makes it easier for -stable as each individual patch
fixes a problem, so in re-reading them, I have no objection for them to
go into -stable.

Would these also work on 3.0?

> > I'm all for enabling new hardware like this, and overall, the patches
> > aren't that bad, just want to verify this.
> 
> Let me know what you think; they'll be queued for 3.2 once they've
> gotten review and (I hope) more testing. It's Jesse's fault there are
> so many little patches; he asked me to split things up into separate
> functional changes. It's either that, or I'm just looking to increase
> the number of patches I have in the kernel.
> 
> > And, I do have to tell you, "curses, now I have no excuse to not buy
> > that laptop!"
> 
> I'd rather have a 'regular' PC; getting Debian installed on this machine
> was no picnic.

Due to UEFI stuff?  Or something else?

> But, I haven't seen anything else in this form factor that includes a
> display port connector.

I agree, it is a very nice hardware form factor that no other
manufacturer can seem to duplicate for the same (well, any) price these
days.

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/