Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread Bryan Wu
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Eric Miao wrote: > Just FYI - lengthy but very interesting read, Linus was really good at > wording, enjoy heh :-) > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/17/283 > > So maybe it's just a right time to talk about using linaro ARM kernel > tree as a fork for quick merge of

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread Nicolas Pitre
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Andy Green wrote: > I just don't see people tweaking DT tables by package update and leaving the > kernel package unchanged, I do see wrong version DT tables getting pulled in, > bootloader environments pointing to the wrong place or NAND or default > environments coming in and

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread Grant Likely
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Jaswinder Singh wrote: > On 3 April 2011 21:44, Andy Green wrote: >> On 04/03/2011 05:05 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: >> >>> Above everything else, I definitely like to see DT get done first, >>> it's essential for SoC these days. >> >> All I am

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread jonsm...@gmail.com
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Andy Green wrote: > On 04/03/2011 06:19 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: >> hardware in the device tree and remove the old kernel code that was >> building the description. Move on to device trees provided by the >> bootloader. After basic hardware des

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread Andy Green
On 04/03/2011 06:19 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: Hi - On the other hand, device trees aren't a static solution. For example, they haven't come up with a generic mechanism for completely describing things like clock and power management domains. But let's figure out schemes for

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread Jaswinder Singh
On 3 April 2011 21:44, Andy Green wrote: > On 04/03/2011 05:05 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > >> Above everything else, I definitely like to see DT get done first, >> it's essential for SoC these days. > > All I am suggesting is bind the DTs in the kernel.  That's easier and fast

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread jonsm...@gmail.com
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Matt Sealey wrote: > At the point where device tree specification and maintenance is done > in-kernel, device trees get very Linux-specific and very > Linux-driver-specific. Plenty of mistakes were made in the move to > flattened device trees on PowerPC which took

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread Andy Green
On 04/03/2011 05:46 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: As long as the experience is driven by both the SoC vendor and the board designer and not the kernel driver engineer, this will go very well.. At the point where device tree specification and maintenance is done in-kernel, device

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread Matt Sealey
As long as the experience is driven by both the SoC vendor and the board designer and not the kernel driver engineer, this will go very well.. At the point where device tree specification and maintenance is done in-kernel, device trees get very Linux-specific and very Linux-driver-specific. Plenty

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread Andy Green
On 04/03/2011 05:05 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: Above everything else, I definitely like to see DT get done first, it's essential for SoC these days. All I am suggesting is bind the DTs in the kernel. That's easier and faster than the alternatives and there is a lot less t

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread Andy Green
On 04/03/2011 04:25 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: Hi - Think of the DT as a way of probing a bus that doesn't have probe capabilities. This gives you a way to dynamically load drivers from initrd if you want. For example we dynamically loaded drivers for I2C devices that were p

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread Xianghua Xiao
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:25 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Andy Green wrote: >> On 04/03/2011 04:07 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: >> >> Hi - >>   * And very hardware specific code moved out to a controllable place,     i.e. something li

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread jonsm...@gmail.com
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Andy Green wrote: > On 04/03/2011 04:07 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > Hi - > >>>   * And very hardware specific code moved out to a controllable place, >>>     i.e. something like BIOS >> >> Sorry, but I must vehemently disagree here.  BIOSes ar

Re: Sound hardware device specifics for Linaro dev boards

2011-04-03 Thread Matt Sealey
I'm trying to get this data from the Smarttop to show the SPDIF device but I get the same "No PulseAudio daemon running, or not running as session daemon." as Shawn.. under exactly the same operating system as Jason.. Is there a special place I need to be running this, in a certain shell? All I ca

Re: Linus being annoyed by the ARM kernel code

2011-04-03 Thread Andy Green
On 04/03/2011 04:07 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: Hi - * And very hardware specific code moved out to a controllable place, i.e. something like BIOS Sorry, but I must vehemently disagree here. BIOSes are a problem for Open Source, not a solution. On X86 they use BIO