On 28 October 2014 16:59, Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 04:29:15PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> On 9 October 2014 17:10, Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> >> wrote: >> > This is the second version of my rather big changes to support the >> > 3.16 kernel, and more specifically on the mvebu SoCs. >> > >> > The first patch ports the existing 3.14 patches to 3.16, and creates a >> > generic configuration for it. >> > >> > http://free-electrons.com/~maxime/pub/openwrt-3.16/v2-0001-linux-Add-3.16-support.patch >> >> A kind of problem with 3.16 was its support as it wasn't picked for >> LTS by anyone. >> >> So personally I'd prefer to use another kernel version for OpenWrt >> release. A one with LTS would be great. Recently we've started working >> on 3.18, which is probably the nearest kernel with a chance of LTS. >> And it case it won't be LTS, personally I'd look for another one. > > I wasn't aware of such policy. Is there a reason for 3.13 for example > to be supported then?
It's what some ppl prefer, maybe even more since the AA release. 10.04 was based on 3.3 which caused some problems. I don't really know about 3.13. My personal great wish is to kill 3.3, 3.8 and 3.13 ASAP in OpenWrt. >> > The second patch does pretty much the same thing but for the mvebu >> > target. >> >> Would it be possible for you to switch to 3.18? It's still not ready >> (not compiling) as it was started just yesterday. But I think we will >> try to stabilize this one. > > I needed a kernel >= 3.16, so 3.18 is fine for me. I can of course > help to bring it up, and I'll be happy to, but if there's a chance for > my work to actually help and be merged. > > So far, I sent three change sets: > - One that, as I just discovered, has been silently merged. I guess > it's ok. > - One to upgrade to 3.16, which will apparently not get merged, > because some private (as in !public) effort as been going on and > just appeared out of nowhere on the git repo, without any posting > or reviews. I didn't receive any mail warning me of that effort, > or why my work was considered pointless, before yours, three weeks > later. > - One to fix real issues that were preventing *any* openwrt image to > be flashed, let alone work, on one officially "supported" > device. This one being the most critical only got two reviews, > that were just basically saying "meh. I don't like it", but never > got any suggestions on how to actually fix things the right way. > > I'm not trying to force my way in, I'm really not, I'd be really happy > to improve my patches so that these bugs end up being fixed > upstream. But there need to be some discussion, and guidance probably, > for that, and so far there's been none. > > These were my first contributions to OpenWRT, and I can't really say > I've been pleased with the experience so far. I can't really say why your work wasn't properly reviewed/accepted. Adding new kernel is always a big task to do & to review. I guess noone got time to spend few hours checking your 3.16 patches :( And it's really complex for one developer to handle all subsystem changes. I also don't see a good solution for that. 1) Someone spends hours working on new kernel support silently Result: people complaining because of non-public & slow work. 2) Someone tries to work on new kernel in a public way Result: people complaining it's not working out-of-box, see: https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/18236 I didn't really spend hours working on 3.18 in some non-public way. I just ported most patches in ~2 hours and pushed what I got. Now I need help on cleaning that up. I'm also not sure about other of your patches. My only guess I ppl didn't focus on them since there wasn't 3.16 in the first place. Or maybe you could send separated patch per patch? Luka: any comments / preferences about this? -- Rafał _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
