On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:44:00PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 05:36:32PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote:
- 96e53c41e1f81c9e9d1ce38d3f28b95668b71dcf - just dead code removal,
avoids conflicts later.
This commit claims the hardware is now supported by a different driver. Is that support in 4.9? I couldn't figure it out :(
From what I can tell its that way since 3.11.
I suspect this isn't worth the effort - it's defintely more than a simple quirk anyway.
But as Mark points out, this is getting a bit too complicated and risky.
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 08:24:18PM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:44:00PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 05:36:32PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote:
- 96e53c41e1f81c9e9d1ce38d3f28b95668b71dcf - just dead code removal,
avoids conflicts later.
This commit claims the hardware is now supported by a different driver. Is that support in 4.9? I couldn't figure it out :(
From what I can tell its that way since 3.11.
I suspect this isn't worth the effort - it's defintely more than a simple quirk anyway.
But as Mark points out, this is getting a bit too complicated and risky.
Ok, now dropped, thanks.
greg k-h
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org