Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
I wonder if the device tree is the answer here. If the box comes with
a DT or one is available on the web then the installer could read it and
know what to install. That and the armmp kernel should solve the
problem.
you'd think so, and it's a very good question, to
> the economics of market forces don't work that way.
> profit-maximising companies are pathologically and *LEGALLY* bound to
> enact the articles of incorporation. so you'd need to show them that
> it would hurt their profits to continue the way that they are going.
I think legally bound is a myth
> From: yuhongbao_...@hotmail.com
> To: l...@lkcl.net; hancock...@gmail.com
> CC: david.goodeno...@btconnect.com; debian-arm@lists.debian.org;
> linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; arm-netb...@lists.phcomp.co.uk
> Subject: RE: device tree not th
On 05/08/2013 03:19:23 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> whereas the EOMA initiative is at the complete opposite end of the
>> spectrum. and products based around the EOMA standards, although
>> there is a cost overhead of e.g. aroun
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:19:23AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> >> whereas the EOMA initiative is at the complete opposite end of the
> >> spectrum. and products based around the EOMA standards, although
> >> there is a cost
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> whereas the EOMA initiative is at the complete opposite end of the
>> spectrum. and products based around the EOMA standards, although
>> there is a cost overhead of e.g. around $6 in parts for EOMA-68, there
>> is a whopping great saving of
On 05/06/2013 03:55:11 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> You realize that nobody except Samsung and Apple is currently
making money
> in the smartphone space, right?
ok, ok - substitute "tablet" or "laptop" or "media centre" for
"sm
On Mon, 6 May 2013, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
I am getting the impression that we should ignore the cell phones given
they seem to be thoroughly ignoring their customers and everyone else
anyhow. If we then focus on the devices that perhaps do care to be around
for a while and supported, we might
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
>> And neither is the same as the quality or sustainability of the
>> resulting software. But if the product line will be be discontinued
>> three months after its introduction, who cares about being able to
>> maintain anything?
>
> Sounds
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 07:08:44 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>
>> > I suppose that ARM multi-platform will never cover all ARM CPUs, but
>> > the more it covers, the easier and cheaper it will be to work with new
>> > hardware and ARM.
>>
>>
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 03:01:58PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> And economies of scale are everything to hardware cost. Unit volume
> amortizes the development (and often licensing) costs down, in the
> long run who has the highest unit volume has the cheapest product.
> Being able to reuse off the
On 05/06/2013 07:08:44 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> I suppose that ARM multi-platform will never cover all ARM CPUs, but
> the more it covers, the easier and cheaper it will be to work with
new
> hardware and ARM.
no. no, no no and wrong. absolutely dead wrong. you're complet
Le 06/05/2013 20:07, Mark Morgan Lloyd a écrit :
> Strictly, it's Forth compiled into fcode; I'm not sure, but possibly also
> used for drivers on PPC Mac disks etc. Whether or not one likes Forth as a
> general-purpose language, it's definitely got its uses.
PPC Mac disks drivers were pure asse
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 06:33:51PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
*click*. now some comments on #arm-netbooks make sense. such as
"sparc has had device tree for 20 years". okay. i get it.
Yes devicetree was invented as a way for embedded powerpc sys
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 06:33:51PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> *click*. now some comments on #arm-netbooks make sense. such as
> "sparc has had device tree for 20 years". okay. i get it.
Yes devicetree was invented as a way for embedded powerpc systems to
provide the same
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
> My understanding- and I admit freely that it's based on cursory research and
> could be entirely wrong- is that DeviceTree is a derivative or at least a
> spin-off of a group of projects which include IEEE 1275 aka OpenFirmware.
*click*
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
mark, thank for this. i'm bringing lkml back in [my decision] but
just this once as i believe the point's now been made. i'm also
leaving it below [top-post style] as it's background, as well as
standing on its own merit.
i was under the impression that devi
mark, thank for this. i'm bringing lkml back in [my decision] but
just this once as i believe the point's now been made. i'm also
leaving it below [top-post style] as it's background, as well as
standing on its own merit.
i was under the impression that device tree had been declared
successful o
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
And I have a question: as the Debian installer takes the arch armhf in
charge, do you think a standard install' from a netboot image will work
?
this has been on my list for a lng time. as with *all* debian
installer images however you are hampered by the
james, hi - top-posting or not you make some valid points, and i don't
believe you're subscribed to arm-netbooks so i'm going to take a
liberty and reply briefly inline but keep most of what you've written
intact, apologies to debian-arm and lkml.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:04 AM, James Courtier-Du
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Oliver Schinagl wrote:
> Note, I'm not qualified nor important or anything really to be part of
> this discussion or mud slinging this may turn into, but I do fine some
> flaws in the reasoning here that If not pointed out, may get grossly
> overlooked.
allo olive
Am 06.05.2013 08:53, schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
but the question you have to ask is: why should the HW designers even
care? they're creating an embedded specialist system, they picked the
most cost-effective and most available solution to them - why _should_
they care?
and the a
The real problem with any new system, is the hardware is designed and
then it is a challenge for the software developer to get the software
to boot on the new hardware.
The nirvana here would be to take the original hardware circuit
diagram, and process it to automatically create a config file.
The
Note, I'm not qualified nor important or anything really to be part of
this discussion or mud slinging this may turn into, but I do fine some
flaws in the reasoning here that If not pointed out, may get grossly
overlooked.
On 06-05-13 06:09, Robert Hancock wrote:
On 05/05/2013 06:27 AM, Luke
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Robert Hancock wrote:
>> and that's just within *one* of the fabless semiconductor companies,
>> and you have to bear in mind that there are *several hundred* ARM
>> licensees. when this topic was last raised, someone mentioned that
>> ARM attempted to standardise
On 05/05/2013 06:27 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
this message came up on debian-arm and i figured that it is worthwhile
endeavouring to get across to people why device tree cannot and will
not ever be the solution it was believed to be, in the ARM world.
[just a quick note to david wh
this message came up on debian-arm and i figured that it is worthwhile
endeavouring to get across to people why device tree cannot and will
not ever be the solution it was believed to be, in the ARM world.
[just a quick note to david who asked this question on the debian-arm
mailing list: any chan
27 matches
Mail list logo
