On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Jean, here is something to start with. Tested to apply cleanly > > over 2.4.23 after your set of 4 patches. > > > > Patch -km-1 : > > > > Remove code for KERNEL_VERSION tests. > > Great. This was on my TODO list. I think I'll tweak it a bit, to remove > version.h includes which aren't necessary anymore (I guess) and merge > empty lines where it applies. Also, this patch might conflict with the > one I wrote on posted to the list yesterday (which cleans modules > init/exit handling). But basically you got it, this is something I > wanted to send to Marcelo. > > > Patch -km-2 : > > > > This has .owner and .inc/dec_use for reference counting. Also, C99 > > initializers and initcalls are imported from i2c CVS head. > > What are initcalls. > > > No new drivers, SMBus commands or driver ID's. > > Good point. > > > This is about 1/4 of changes needed to bring 2.4.24 in-sync with i2c > > 2.8.2. > > Sure this is an important part, this is even the reason why all these > started. > > But there's a problem. As discussed on the list the last few days, i2c > as of CVS head does not handle module reference counting correctly. So > we cannot possibly send this patch to Marcelo before this issue is > fixed. Since you seem to know how to fix it, please commit the > necessary changes to CVS head (I don't think it is a good idea to > branch the CVS, it's just not worth it). I do well understand that, > even with the fix, the reference counting will be broken, but at least > it won't be worse than in the previous implementation (that is, moving > into /proc/.../somechip/ increases the chip use count, but not the bus > use count). This is required before we can send any inc/dec-to-owner > patch to Marcelo. > > > At least i2c-proc is not yet in sync with 2.8.0, so sensor chips > > will not build. > > This was expected. They don't build either as of now anyway ;) > > > I probably forgot some tiny parts elsewhere too but seems > > you were working on similar cleanups so maybe this is some > > assistance. > > Your help is very appreciated, since there is much much work to do and > we are runnign out of time. > > > We cannot get 200kB+ patches through anyway. > > Yes, that's the idea (and I don't consider it a problem, since this > ensures that what we are sending is valid and doesn't bring any > regression into the kernel tree). > > > I'll prepare some more patches today. Driver ID's, SMBus commands, > > and i2c-proc. The in-file revision tag $id has not been in sync with > > CVS files for ages and I plan to unexpand them with a separate > > patch. > > IDs is an easy and independant patch, I should be able to go with it if > you don't. > > New SMBus commands are not to be commited for now, if ever. They are > new > functionalities, I doubt Marcelo will want them into Linux 2.4. > > The i2c-proc patches (and anything related to the core or spread over > all drivers) are what is more important, both because it might need to > be done before other minor changes, and because I don't understand it > too well, so that's where your help will be really precious. > > Thanks a lot for providing assistance in backporting CVS to Linux 2.4. > Keep in mind that all changes have to be as sliced as possible if we > want them accepted. > > I will be submitting a new wave of patches to Marcelo rather soon, which > should include (list is not definitive): > - init/exit cleanups (me) > - compatibility cleanups (you) > - velleman doc (me) > - algo debug stuff removal (me) > > I'll let you know as soon as I'm working on other patches so that we can > merge our efforts efficiently. > > Thanks again. > > -- Ky?sti M?lkki <kyosti.malkki at welho.com> +358 50 462 8786
