Re: modem not responding

[Ben Dooks <ben-linux-arm@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:28:30AM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Ben:
> 
> Ben Dooks wrote:
> 
> >I am interested to find out why people seem to be so keen on sticking to 
> >obsolete kernels.
> > 
> >
> 
> I wouldn't use the term "obsolete" to describe the 2.4 ARM kernels.  
> Rather, that's where the complete and/or mature peripheral support lies, 
> especially for AT91RM9200.  I'm guessing the same thing is true for the 
> Sharp LHx SOCs.

`Complete` for a small section of chips, in this case, there is NO support
for any s3c2410 in any mainline kernel release. There are a couple of
releases from MIZI, and the 2.4 work we did for the BAST, but neither of
these is really for anything other than the specific product they support.

> As far as I can tell, the best term to describe 2.6 is "preliminary" as 
> the list of stuff that works in 2.4 vs. 2.6 for many ARM SOC targets is 
> very, very short.  I'm doing the best I can for AT91RM9200, but in the 
> meantime I have customers who need stuff to Just Work.

I would argue that whilst 2.6 is not mature, it is certainly good and
improving with time. If more people made the effort, then 2.6 would soon
be ahead of 2.4 (MMC, driver model, etc)

If you have a solution that works and meets your customers needs, then
that is just fine. However, as soon as we get people on here with problems
with old kernels, it becomes a pain, and we'd sooner seem them try a new
kernel to see if that fixes the problems for them.

-- 
Ben

Q:      What's a light-year?
A:      One-third less calories than a regular year.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscription options: http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm
FAQ/Etiquette:       http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/armlinux/mailinglists.php