Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:32:56PM +0000, Dave Stevenson wrote: >> You've got a reason. It's GPLv2 licenced code so I have no control >> over what happens to it. >> Everywhere I have worked, when a patch has issues it is better to "-1" >> to stop/delay the merge even (or particularly) on your own patches, >> but this is your playground so your rules. > > It's fine to say "don't apply, for _THIS REASON_". You didn't specify a > reason, which is why I complained. > >> Anyway, I'll go back to working with the downstream tree (pull request >> for the full fix there) and stop bothering you. > > Ah, fun, we will diverge even more in the future, not good. Any reason > why I shouldn't just delete this whole in-kernel tree if you are going > to spend time maintaining a different version? > > If you want to maintain this driver, in the kernel tree, by all means I > would love the help as I don't have hardware or the ability to test > anything. Having two different trees for the source guarantees that > there are going to be constant problems here, and that's not good for > anyone. If Dave doesn't do the upstreaming work for his future work, I'll be forced to. The rpi tree still hasn't diverged, yet (other than this patch and the related one being discussed).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
