[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201124164033.GH4933@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:40:33 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.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 Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 04:21:48PM +0100, Linus Walleij 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.
In this case I think this is partly due to the way people were sold on
the DT conversion - part of the sales pitch was that you'd not need to
get board support upstream, which is a useful thing if you want to run
things like LTS or distro kernels on newer hardware.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists