linux-kernel - Re: getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1494529.ijR1yO8EGg@flatron>
Date:	Thu, 06 Jun 2013 00:22:55 +0200
From:	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@...abs.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	debian-arm@...ts.debian.org,
	"jonsmirl@...il.com" <jonsmirl@...il.com>,
	debian-release@...ts.debian.org,
	Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@...l.net>,
	Linux on small ARM machines 
	<arm-netbook@...ts.phcomp.co.uk>, debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org
Subject: Re: getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 22:16:37 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:00:13PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > 2) Having U-Boot itself read a DT and configure itself, just like the
> > kernel does. This is relatively new, and only supported by a few
> > boards
> > (all Tegra to some extent, and a couple each Samsung Exynos and Xilinx
> > boards). I suspect/guess this is the kind of thing that Luke was
> > referring to re: U-Boot fex integration.
> 
> Reading what I have of this thread, this is just another case of
> $company runs of and does their own unique way of doing something,
> which is in a totally different direction from that path chosen by
> Linux kernel developers, and Linux kernel developers are _expected_
> to roll over and accept $company's unique way of doing it.
> 
> $company could have assisted with the DT effort, helping to sort out
> the common arch issues (which haven't been all that much), converting
> drivers to DT and such like.  But no, instead they've gone off and
> created their own thing.
> 
> I wonder how many more of these cases there needs to be before people
> get the message that Linux kernel developers *do* *not* like this
> behaviour, and if you do this, then chances are you're going to be
> stuck with having code which isn't able to be merged into mainline.
> 
> And I don't buy the argument that we were still sorting out DT.  DT has
> been well defined for many many years before we started using it on ARM.
> It has been used for years on both PowerPC and Sparc architectures to
> describe their hardware, and all of the DT infrastructure was already
> present in the kernel.  What was left for us were:
> 
> * converting our platform-data based drivers to use data from DT.
> * come up with ways of dealing with SoC issues such as clock
>   representation, pin muxing and such like in DT.
> 
> But no... all that had to be created in this custom fex stuff which now
> presents a barrier with getting support for something merged.
> 
> And somehow people make out that this is _our_ problem...

Well said. And the problem is that this is not the first and probably not 
the last such case.

Best regards,
Tomasz

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/