On Sat, 2013-07-13 at 10:09 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 09:08:01AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: ... > > I was looking at it as a quirk: > > > > " - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted." > > > > I even considered implementation as a pci quirk. I didn't because the > > PHY work needed to happen too late during probe. The frustrating thing > > is there is probably 15 lines of code that are needed to get it to > > work, all the rest is infrastructure to make it generic. > > 163 lines of code is not a "quirk" I can accept. When I wrote, "new > device ids or quirks can be accpted for stable", I meant things like > commit 9e9dd0e889c76c786e8f2e164c825c3c06dea30c. That's acceptable. > Not thing huge thing. Got it. I was confused on "new device IDs and quirks" versus "support for new hardware". My fault, that's clear now. ... > > I get the size argument. It's too big. The docs say 100 lines with > > context, I've seen much larger go in... I just wasn't sure where the > > line is. It seems things are getting more strict here, not less. OK. > > Lesson learned. > > You have seen larger "quirks" than this go into the stable tree? > Examples for where I've been sleeping on the job would be good. No, sorry, I just meant patches larger than 100 lines with context, that's all. ... > > > This isn't going to land in Linus's tree until 3.12 anyway, so what's > > > the rush? > > > > My reasoning is that the BSP for this is based on 3.8. I would like to > > bring 3.8 in sync with master for support of this board so I can update > > the release BSP to use the same sources. People can use my code from > > the linux-yocto_3.8 standard/minnow branch, but it would be preferable > > if that code was also destined for upstream. > > That's your choice to pick 3.8, not upstream's (and frankly, not > something that I would have picked, but that's another topic...) Maybe we can catch up at LPC or something, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Of course there are a lot of factors that go into that decision, and the bulk of it is consolidating effort on a single tree across BSPs in a project that has a 6 month release cadence. ... > You are adding functionality for new devices that take much more than a > simple "add an id to a table", so no, it's not ok for stable releases. Got it, I'll drop the stable lines from the subsequent versions and keep that in mind for future projects. I'm trying to think if I can polish up the docs to help clarify things, thinking on it. Thank you Greg. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html