[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))
    On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
    <> wrote:

    > If companies are going to go off and invent the square wheel, and that
    > makes *them* suffer the loss of being able to merge back into the
    > mainline kernel, thereby making *their* job of moving forward with
    > their kernel versions much harder, then yes, we *are* happy.

    russell: they have more employees than sense :) they also don't have
    any idea of what they *should* be doing, so this is an opportunity to
    educate them.

    they're not feeling any pain: they just employ more chinese
    developers and substitute bodies for time and common-sense.

    also, in this particular case, thanks to their script.fex system when
    i said they only need to develop one kernel and one u-boot i really
    wasn't kidding around: they really have got to the point which
    everyone else dreams of with device-tree [admittedly by limiting the
    product range that their clients can play with, but that product range
    has huge returns, so they're still happy].

    > Companies will always do idiotic things; it's *them* and their users
    > who have to live with the results of that bad decision making process.

    russell: the decision process they've made is actually an extremely
    effective one.

    > Eventually, the pain of being outside the mainline kernel will become
    > too great, especially if their users demand things like kernel upgrades
    > from them. Eventually, they will change.
    > And no, this isn't an intransigent position. This is reality given
    > that ARM already has way too much code in the Linux kernel and we're
    > trying to reduce that through the use of technologies like DT. The
    > last thing we need right now is for another "DT" like implementation
    > to come along which is only used on a minority of platforms - even if
    > the platform it is used on is successful.
    > The way this works is this:
    > - you either go with the policies which are set, or

    .... which they weren't consulted on, it has to be pointed out.

    > - you change the policy as a whole because you have a technically
    > superior solution

    i believe they have a technically more *successful* solution. whether
    it's more appropriate in a wider context is another matter.

    here we have a key to the crux of the problem: the linux kernel
    maintainers have to cater for _everyone_. with no funding or
    incentive from the major contributors to work with them. hmmm....

    > What that means in this case is either you adopt DT, or you convince
    > everyone that DT isn't the solution, but your solution is, and we adopt
    > your solution for *everything* instead.
    > If neither of those are possible, then that's really not our problem,
    > and it's not _us_ who are being "intransigent".


    ok. so. we come back to the question again: what shall i propose to
    them that they consider doing, and what benefit would it be to them to
    do so?

    i cannot go to them and say "you have to do this [insert proposal
    here]" - it has to be more subtle than that.


     \ /
      Last update: 2013-06-07 10:41    [W:0.024 / U:127.936 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site