[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yunsjne8kzu.fsf@aiko.keithp.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 01:58:29 -0700
From: Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] MacBook Air patch sequence (v2)
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:33:56 -0700, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> Are these really all -stable material?
I think just the sequence that actually makes the machine work; the
scarier patches are those which reduce the mode setting time from 5-10s
down to .7s.
Is this stretching the bounds of what is acceptable for -stable? Would
it look better as a single patch, instead of 14 separate ones?
> I'm all for enabling new hardware like this, and overall, the patches
> aren't that bad, just want to verify this.
Let me know what you think; they'll be queued for 3.2 once they've
gotten review and (I hope) more testing. It's Jesse's fault there are
so many little patches; he asked me to split things up into separate
functional changes. It's either that, or I'm just looking to increase
the number of patches I have in the kernel.
> And, I do have to tell you, "curses, now I have no excuse to not buy
> that laptop!"
I'd rather have a 'regular' PC; getting Debian installed on this machine
was no picnic. But, I haven't seen anything else in this form factor
that includes a display port connector.
--
keith.packard@...el.com
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists