From: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
        devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        debian-arm@lists.debian.org, "jonsmirl@gmail.com" <jonsmirl@gmail.com>,
        debian-release@lists.debian.org,
        Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net>,
        Linux on small ARM machines 
	<arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk>,
        debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 00:22:55 +0200
Message-ID: <1494529.ijR1yO8EGg@flatron>
User-Agent: KMail/4.10.4 (Linux/3.9.4-gentoo; KDE/4.10.4; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20130605211637.GH18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <CAPweEDx3mAy40BZrzrKPRbvg7vKMj7KevDQ3m_v4p6Yo50eSGg@mail.gmail.com> <51AFA6DD.3000202@wwwdotorg.org> <20130605211637.GH18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2445
Lines: 51

On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 22:16:37 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:00:13PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > 2) Having U-Boot itself read a DT and configure itself, just like the
> > kernel does. This is relatively new, and only supported by a few
> > boards
> > (all Tegra to some extent, and a couple each Samsung Exynos and Xilinx
> > boards). I suspect/guess this is the kind of thing that Luke was
> > referring to re: U-Boot fex integration.
> 
> Reading what I have of this thread, this is just another case of
> $company runs of and does their own unique way of doing something,
> which is in a totally different direction from that path chosen by
> Linux kernel developers, and Linux kernel developers are _expected_
> to roll over and accept $company's unique way of doing it.
> 
> $company could have assisted with the DT effort, helping to sort out
> the common arch issues (which haven't been all that much), converting
> drivers to DT and such like.  But no, instead they've gone off and
> created their own thing.
> 
> I wonder how many more of these cases there needs to be before people
> get the message that Linux kernel developers *do* *not* like this
> behaviour, and if you do this, then chances are you're going to be
> stuck with having code which isn't able to be merged into mainline.
> 
> And I don't buy the argument that we were still sorting out DT.  DT has
> been well defined for many many years before we started using it on ARM.
> It has been used for years on both PowerPC and Sparc architectures to
> describe their hardware, and all of the DT infrastructure was already
> present in the kernel.  What was left for us were:
> 
> * converting our platform-data based drivers to use data from DT.
> * come up with ways of dealing with SoC issues such as clock
>   representation, pin muxing and such like in DT.
> 
> But no... all that had to be created in this custom fex stuff which now
> presents a barrier with getting support for something merged.
> 
> And somehow people make out that this is _our_ problem...

Well said. And the problem is that this is not the first and probably not 
the last such case.

Best regards,
Tomasz

--
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/