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 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
