Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756648Ab3FFNNA (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:13:00 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:37455 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756168Ab3FFNMm (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:12:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:10:42 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: "luke.leighton" Cc: Tomasz Figa , devicetree-discuss , Stephen Warren , Linux Kernel Mailing List , debian-arm@lists.debian.org, "jonsmirl@gmail.com" , Linux on small ARM machines , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1)) Message-ID: <20130606131042.GN18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1370475609.20454.44.camel@localhost> <1733666.lHUBcfUXq9@flatron> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2281 Lines: 47 On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:24:57PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote: > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner code to > > DT (as it has been suggested in this thread several times already), as > > this is the only hardware description method supported by ARM Linux. > > i repeat again: please state, explicitly and unequivocably that you - > linux kernel developers - are happy that the reach of linux and > gnu/linux OSes is dramatically reduced due to this intransigent > position. 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. 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. 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 - you change the policy as a whole because you have a technically superior solution 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". -- 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/