From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756183AbYJWCuW (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:50:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751349AbYJWCuI (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:50:08 -0400 Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.46]:34466 "EHLO vms046pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751008AbYJWCuH (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:50:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:49:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/42] Staging: add pcc-acpi driver In-reply-to: <20081022184808.GA24150@suse.de> X-X-Sender: lenb@localhost.localdomain To: Greg KH Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Hiroshi Miura , YOKOTA Hiroshi , Harald Welte , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII References: <20081022172203.GA4000@kroah.com> <1224696563-5170-1-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de> <20081022184808.GA24150@suse.de> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:37:18PM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > > NAK. > > this was already relplaced by the panasonic driver in the acpi tree. > > Is this in 2.6.27, or was it a 2.6.28 addition? For some reason, I had > reports from openSUSE users that 2.6.27 still didn't work properly and > needed this driver. > > How about the new "pcc-acpi-cdrom" driver hack? Hiroshi, is that needed > still with the 2.6.27 kernel? drivers/misc/panasonic-laptop.c is staged for 2.6.28: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git;a=history;f=drivers/misc/panasonic-laptop.c;h=a2cb598d8ab54a98000d1f31f7c2407924399a5e;hb=test > > Greg, > > If it has the word "acpi" in it, please check with me before > > putting something in the staging tree, for I'd prefer to > > stage such things in the acpi tree. > > Ok, I didn't know you wanted "uncleaned" drivers in your tree, I'll > remember this for the future :) AFAICK, the driver that was checked into staging tree was based on an older version of the driver already staged in the acpi tree. I think that the staging tree isn't helping us in this scenario. thanks, -Len