[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170216184524.cxcy2ux37yrwutla@lukather>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:45:24 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To: Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@...h.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: ML dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, wens@...e.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] ARM: sun8i: a33: Mali improvements
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:43:06PM +0100, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
> I was wondering about the following. Wasn't there some strict
> requirement about code going upstream, which also included that there
> was a full open-source driver stack for it?
>
> I don't see how this is the case for Mali, neither in the kernel, nor in
> userspace. I'm aware that the Mali kernel driver is open-source. But it
> is not upstream, maintained out of tree, and won't land upstream in its
> current form (no resemblence to a DRM driver at all). And let's not talk
> about the userspace part.
>
> So, why should this be here?
The device tree is a representation of the hardware itself. The state
of the driver support doesn't change the hardware you're running on,
just like your BIOS/UEFI on x86 won't change the device it reports to
Linux based on whether it has a driver for it.
So yes, unfortunately, we don't have a driver upstream at the
moment. But that doesn't prevent us from describing the hardware
accurately.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists