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, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1494529.ijR1yO8EGg@flatron
