ac100 team mailing list archive

[Julian Andres Klode <jak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:10:49PM +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
> Hello Marc and other kernel developers,
> 
> what is the upstream status of the tegra2 and ac100 patches carried it
> the ac100 tree?

At least on the nvec side, mostly identical in 3.3 (once the currently
panding patch series is applied).

Problematic is most likely the use of Device Tree in upstream kernels
which we do not have in the <= 3.0 kernels. And the upstream kernels
do not have framebuffer support.

> 
> With 3.0 only now stabilizing I am not sure how appropriate is to
> think of newer kernels,
> but still I am curious what amount of work would be needed to port to
> 3.2 or newer.
> 
> In Ubuntu 12.04 the majority of kernel packages will be 3.2 based so a
> smaller delta will make
> security and bugfix updates for the official distro kernels easier to
> apply to the ac100 one,
> it being maintained on a best effort basis only.

There will not be a small delta in the near future from what I
can tell. Especially not for 3.2 which is totally out of scope
from an upstreaming perspective. That said, I suspect that there
will be a 3.2 chromiumos kernel appearing in kernel-next; but
I'm just guessing (2.6.38 =+2=> 3.0 = 2.6.40 =+2=> 3.2).


-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.