[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbJsiW_U2hrsT+t5gsbj+ow2t_kEmTQyD2jZxs3LCRfLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:21:48 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
Simon Han <z.han@...bus.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] spi: fix client driver breakages when using GPIO descriptors
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:41 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> What people think they were sold was the idea that they shouldn't have
> to write driver code or upstream things, something with more AML like
> capabilities (not realising that AML works partly because ACPI hugely
> constrains system design).
This makes a lot of sense.
I suppose what we need to think about is the bigger question of why
people/companies/managers are so worried about working upstream
that they will go to lengths to avoid it and jump at any chance of
raising a wall of abstraction between their internal development and
the in-kernel software development.
I think of this as vendor/community couples therapy or something,
there is some form of deep disconnect or mistrust going on at times
and having worked on both ends myself I would think I could
understand it but I can't.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists