Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758042Ab3FEWrP (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:47:15 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com ([209.85.223.177]:37672 "EHLO mail-ie0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757660Ab3FEWrN convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:47:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1370469574.18839.33.camel@localhost> References: <51AFA6DD.3000202@wwwdotorg.org> <1370469574.18839.33.camel@localhost> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 23:47:13 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1)) From: "luke.leighton" To: Linux on small ARM machines Cc: devicetree-discuss , Stephen Warren , Linux Kernel Mailing List , debian-arm@lists.debian.org, "jonsmirl@gmail.com" , ARM Linux Mailing List , debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2546 Lines: 59 On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote: >> .... and then there's the boot0 and boot1 loaders, these *do* have > no, these are not tiny. boot0 is 24KB to fit the initial embedded SRAM > (not cache), but boot1 is on pair with u-boot in size and runs from > DRAM. btw, please listen to henrik: he knows what he's talking about, as you can see :) henrik, thank you for correcting my technical misunderstandings, i'll try to remember them and not propagate incorrect stuff. >> so the point is: if anyone wishes me to propose to allwinner that >> they convert over to devicetree, or any other proposal which involves >> significant low-level changes to their working practices that could >> potentially have a massive knock-on effect onto their >> multi-million-dollar clients, it had better be a damn good story. > > Calm down. i am - honest! yes it's a little past my bed-time, but hey... > It isn't really a significant difference to them outside of > the kernel. They do not need to change any of their configuraiton > methods, only a small toolchain change in how the resultig images are > built to have a corresponding device tree built. henrik, jon (smirl), can i ask you both a favour? could you write something up, preferably short, that i could put forward to allwinner? describing what's needed, who would need to do what and so on. > But it is a fair bit of one-time changes kernel side. And some > scratching to figure out how to use/improve/ignore the stuff being > mainlined. i still also - really - need a good justification for this. something which helps explain clearly what the immediate or perhaps strategic benefits would be to allwinner, as to why they should accept such changes. i cannot emphasise enough how important that is. if someone can please help come up with a good justification as to why allwinner should change their working practices, that would be enormously helpful i feel, to solving this issue. otherwise we are stuck in the current situation which nobody really likes. i'm inviting you - linux kernel developers - i'm giving you an opportunity to *fix* things. you have 2 weeks to come up with a solution, which can be presented in a simple format. that's the window of opportunity. l. -- 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/