linux-kernel - Re: [Arm-netbook] 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]

Date:	Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:49:38 +0100
From:	"luke.leighton" <luke.leighton@...il.com>
To:	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Linux on small ARM machines 
	<arm-netbook@...ts.phcomp.co.uk>,
	devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@...abs.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	debian-arm@...ts.debian.org,
	"jonsmirl@...il.com" <jonsmirl@...il.com>,
	debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org
Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re:
 Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com> wrote:
> Luke,
>
> On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:24:57 luke.leighton wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
> wrote:
>> > I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner code
>> > to DT (as it has been suggested in this thread several times
>> > already), as this is the only hardware description method supported
>> > by ARM Linux.
>>  i repeat again: please state, explicitly and unequivocably that you -
>> linux kernel developers - are happy that the reach of linux and
>> gnu/linux OSes is dramatically reduced due to this intransigent
>> position.
>>
>>  or, tomasz, please state that you, tomasz, represent each and every
>> one of the linux kernel developers so that i do not need to keep
>> asking.
>
> I do not represent all linux kernel developers by any means. I am just
> stating current policy of SoC/board support maintained by ARM Linux, which
> is common for all Linux kernel devlopers, or at least ARM Linux kernel
> developers.
>
> Personally I am happy with numerous companies backing this policy and not
> making problems like this with Allwinner and I am really surprised that
> you are supporting a troublesome company like this.

 you've not read what i've written tomasz.

> There are many other SoC vendors making low cost SoCs, like Rockchip,
> Boxchip,

 boxchip *is* allwinner.

> Telechips. Maybe they would be better candidates for being
> promoted as vendors of choice for hardware running free software?

 no, because they're not selling at a low-enough price with
high-enough integration.  telechips and rockchip don't have the market
penetration.

 and many other reasons.


> (Just
> saying, as I do not know anything about their view on this. There is a lot
> of cheap tablets built using their products as well.)
>
> 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/