Messages in this thread | | | From | "" <> | Date | Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:11:44 +0100 | Subject | Re: The end of embedded Linux? |
| |
On 7 Oct 2002, at 21:22, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 18:15, simon@baydel.com wrote: > > a serial port and an interupt controller. What I was trying to explain > > was that I would not mind making my code available for these > > kernel changes. Although I don't understand why anyone would > > want it. Apart from API changes, why do this ? The kernel is not > > easily or frequently changed on this type of system. It would bloat > > the kernel and I would expect to have to address problems of this > > nature myself. However I would not like to make code available for > > the more specialised hardware. > > That depends how specialized the hardware actually is. I think I've see > six different non free implementations of 68360 sync serial code around > all proprietary for example. >
The UART and Interrupt controllers in question are built into a gate array. I can't see how any external or parts from other vendors would be compatible. To get the board to boot Linux I have to modify the kernel and lilo. I understand that under the GPL rules I would have to make this code available. I am willing to do this but I don't see the point.
There is also more specialized hardware for which I have written modules. Although there appears to be some unwritten rule about releasing objects, I believe that the GPL rules state that these modules must conform to the GPL also, as they contain header files. I cannot see how any module can not contain Linux headers or headers derived from Linux headers if it is to be loaded on a Linux kernel.
These modules again drive gate array hardware for which nobody else will ever have a compatible. Although I would dearly love to use Linux as the platform for my project I feel I cannot release this code under the GPL.
This is my dilemma and I am sure it is shared by others. For this reason I cannot see how anything but an embedded PC with applications or a perhaps a very simple hardware device could be considered as an opportunity for embedded Linux.
I have based these thoughts on my experiences so far. If you feel I have drawn an incorrect conclusion I would be grateful for your input.
Many Thanks
Simon.
> Also my original comments were much more aimed at the core stuff. People > who made existing and especially core stuff smaller could send the stuff > out. Several of us want to compile a CONFIG_TINY option, and suprisingly > enough small is good on high end boxes. My L1 cache is 8 times faster > than my L2 cache is 7 times faster than my memory. Or to put it another > way, going to main memory costs me maybe 100 instructions. > > My Athlon thinks small is good too! >
__________________________
Simon Haynes - Baydel Phone : 44 (0) 1372 378811 Email : simon@baydel.com __________________________ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |