RE: modem not responding

["Stephen Beaver" <sbeaver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Obsolescent perhaps but in no way obsolete. 2.4 is clearly still in use and
earning a living all over the world.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-arm-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:linux-arm-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Russell King
- ARM Linux
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:20 AM
To: Bill Gatliff
Cc: 'linux-arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: modem not responding

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:28:30AM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> 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.

There is the converse though - we can't support 2.4 for ever, which is
what people would like us to do.  We have to cut it off sometime, and
I think that time is very close, if not now.

> 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 disagree, there's certainly nothing preliminary about it.  2.6 is
now over two years old and is most definitely mature by my standards.

I'm not going to comment on the AT91 situation because I think that's
something of an annoying special case.  However, other SoC support is
in 2.6 and "Just Works."

As for the LH7xxxx stuff, the support in 2.6 is 8 months old.  If you're
really telling me that it takes more than 8 months to stabilise support
for a chipset, then there's something wrong somewhere, and it isn't the
kernel.

What it basically comes down to is a short sighted attitude by people
who use a policy (develop on 2.4) to provide an argument (2.6 doesn't
contain what we need) to reinforce that policy (develop more on 2.4).
It's a vicious circle.

Maybe the way to break this once and for all is to split this list so
that obsolete 2.4 stuff ends up on linux-arm-kernel-obsolete, so that
those of us who wish to move forward can do so without having to
constantly waste our time reading messages about obsolete kernels.
I'm sure I can create some exim filters which will provide adequate
protection against mis-posts between either list when kernel versions
are mentioned.

Consider it a fork of the community into those who wish to reap the
benefits and contribute back of open source vs those who wish to stay
in the previous "mature" century and leach off the hard work put in by
a relatively small number of community players.

(If anyone finds any of this offensive, I'm sorry.  A line has to be
drawn at some point.)

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


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