On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Luciano Coelho wrote: > I think one of the reasons not many people use the mainline with TWL is > exactly because something seems to break on every new kernel release. > I'm one of those who care and report things when I see them. Well, it's a recursive thing - nobody works on mainline, nobody reviews mainline code and therefore you shouldn't be surprised if there's issues. > I think saying that it is not important because only one person reported > it is not a good excuse. I would at least have liked seeing an answer > saying, "this can't be fixed because of this and that" or "can you try > to fix it by doing this or that". That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it's clearly not the case that OMAP is completely broken here or anything, it appears to be one particular system which it appears vanishingly few people cared about in mainline even before all the stuff with TI recently. Looking at your report the reason I didn't reply myself is most likely to be a combination of my expectation that someone from TI would look at OMAP problems (at the time there were hundreds of people working on OMAP) and the lack of detail in your mail - the bisection report was a bit unclear as you said that you'd reverted the patch "plus a couple of associated patches" without saying what exactly you'd backed out and there was no analysis of the problem to engage with.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
