Thank you Stalin! I gave up the discussion because it leads to nothing. Greg says I'm missing the point but I think they miss my (our) point. I also think they don't use linux on server or embeded equipment and don't have the responsibility to ralay on something stable, so they do not understand my (our) point. Anyway I've installed the 2.6.26 kernel and now few things are not working of course wit hthis version, so where is the point of this installation I DO NOT understand. I have to go back to 2.6.24 anyway. Of course few other things are working better, so somehow all of us are right. My point is that it would be VERY nice if kernel developers DO SUPPORT one version for longer time and provide bug fixes. May be it could be done in a separate tree, but it would help people working with exotic hardware to propagade linux. I think we as comunity should support each other, as the most people here do. The problem was with the neglecting statement that something is old afer beeing few months old, so I was thinking may be Felipe and Greg are buying a new house because they don't like the sink in their present one ;-) I would stop the discussion if it is about who's right and who's wrong - it leads to nothing. What I want to say is that recently a new kernel installation leads to many hours of senseeless work as in the end you find out that different hard/software developers are not supporting the "latest" version andwhen they finally do it is not the latest and people like Gred say that they won't support it ... well it's your free will to do whatever you like, but it is not cooperative and helpful. besides how do I activate digest of the USB mailing list, thanks! cheers --- On Fri, 8/1/08, Stalin Kenny <stalinlinux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Stalin Kenny <stalinlinux@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: USB driver issue > To: me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: "Emanoil Kotsev" <deloptes@xxxxxxxxx>, "linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-omap-open-source@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-omap-open-source@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 2:47 AM > Felipe, > > Sorry to say but to say that one has to migrate to latest > kernel in > order to get community support is not right....the > statement does has > a touch of arrogance. You are not the spokeperson for the > community. > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Felipe Balbi > <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I hope we end this thread some day... > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 01:38:59PM -0700, Emanoil > Kotsev wrote: > >> Kernel developers should fix bugs in minor kernel > versions as they are meant for this purpous and do major > changes only in major version. A bunch of bugfixes I see > (not only usb related) are just not in place in minor kernel > versions. That's my opinion at first place. > >> > >> Second if you want to have me as happy linux user > developers should agree to support older versions to help > embeded and other developers working further on their > projects. > >> And I'm writing this because (also in other > forums) people tend to have such a neglecting mentality > ignoring the needs of others. Just to remember the reason > for this discussion was the statement that 2.6.22 was too > old, which as Anand pointed out was in it's latest > release was issued in the beginning of the year. This is > really "windows like" mentality and as Anand says > at least they support the versions they issue - sorry for > this - but I think it's kind of truth. > >> > > > > 2.6.22 was in Jul 2007, he pointed out a minor stable > version out of > > 2.6.22. > > > >> > > And yes I'm planing to try 2.6.26, > but I'm > >> > pretty sure that there > >> > > would be issues with drivers like > uvcview, the > >> > proprietary ATI and > >> > > NVidia and apps like skype > >> > > >> > Closed source drivers have issues, film at > 11. Bah, take > >> > it up with > >> > them, there is NOTHING that us developers can > do about > >> > that, sorry. > >> > >> You are neglecting the point and kind of insulting > me! So you think I should spent my time convincing about 20 > people from different companies to recompile their software > because I was told by you to upgrade to fix a usb issue or a > kind that is not related to their software and when they > finally do it there is a already a new kernel version ... > sorry I can not agree with any of you on this point. You > want me to spent my time contacting people and not working > on my projects ;-) > > > > You are really missing the whole point of the > discussion. > > > > The driver in question is musb, which is not closed > source at all. > > Closed source drivers is a different issue and Linux > kernel is said that > > won't provide a stable API. It's always > changing. > > > > Really, musb driver _has_ changed since 2.6.22 and > that special 2.6.22 > > version was coming from a vendor we cannot support > vendor kernel. We > > support linux mainline git tree, that's all. > > > > I just asked why using that version, I didn't ask > nobody to upgrade. But > > really, all the changes made from 2.6.22 until now > would make any musb > > patch from 2.6.22 to be unaplicable to recent musb > code, besides, > > *again* it might be that the particular bug could have > been fixed in all > > those set of changes in musb driver from 2.6.22 until > now, so why > > spending time trying to fix again something that might > have been fixed ? > > We could only backport that particular bug fix to > 2.6.22. > > > >> Why just not be able to patch my old kernel > without breaking the ability to use the software I already > have installed and is working with the version I use? > > > > You can do it, but you cannot expect that your patch > get accepted, it > > might even not apply and that was my point. > > > >> I think this is the question no body wants to > answer and I think there is a problem with you guys. What > are you doing this development if some people are not happy > with it and have reasonable arguments. > > > > Talk for yourself, don't "broadcast" it. > > > >> May be the patches should be split into smaller > files related to bugs - just an idea! > >> You experience a bug and patch - the bug is gone > you are happy. > >> May be there should be some longer period to > support at least the latest stable releases ... but > something should be done. > > > > If the api has changed you cannot expect that. > Specialy if you're using > > vendor-specific kernel, it doesn't matter if > it's nokia, redhat, ubuntu, > > TI, etc. > > > >> > Applications are a different story, they > should "just > >> > work" with > >> > different kernel versions, there should not > be any problems > >> > there. If > >> > there are, let the kernel developers know, we > take > >> > backwards userspace > >> > compatiblity VERY seriously. > >> > >> gcc-4.3 ;-) is it application or what do you mean > ... the compiler is not an application ;-) > > > > And it works it doesn't matter the kernel is > running below it. If it can > > generate good binaries or not it's a different > story. Has nothing to do > > with kernel, it's a gcc-related issue, don't > you think ? > > > > Anyways, this thread is already way too big. > > > > -- > > balbi > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line > "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
