On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:17:34PM -0500, Dan Eisenhut wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 02:35:15PM -0500, Dan Eisenhut wrote: > >> Hello. ?I'm writing a gadget driver for an existing system running on > >> a 2.6.10 kernel on a TI Davinici 6446 chip (ARM). ?Due to time > >> constraints and for risk reduction, upgrading this to the latest > >> kernel is not an option as much as I would want to. > > > > 2.6.10? ?Are you really using that kernel version? ?You do realize just > > how old and out of date it is, right? ?Oh, and how insecure it is as > > well... > > I am perfectly aware of how old it is. But the architecture of the > kernel has changed so much since then that I'd basically be recreating > all of the board support files to port it (without good documentation) > and hope that the new kernel doesn't break the existing application. Hopefully kernel changes would not break any application, unless it was doing something very strange. > Seems silly to do when the only kernel change that is needed is the > addition of a new usb driver and a some modifications to the > application to use it. "only kernel change" is pretty funny when you realize how intertwined everything is in the kernel. It's not that simple to backport things like this as you are finding out. The kernel is one big unit, and trying to update one piece usually requires a lot of work. > And this device won't be on a network or accessible (without tearing > the thing apart), just talking USB to another system. So security (or > insecurity as the case may be) is not an issue. That's good to hear. Best of luck, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
