Daniel Walker wrote:
> > But all the rest is arbitrary and could be part of common shared
> > profiles or the like in defconfig format.
>
> I'm sure most people will want to have a config isolated to their
> specific device. That to me seems reasonable because everyone wants the
> smallest possib
Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >Which of course raises the question: How does the Linux community view
> >such SoC vendors? Are they embraced and eagerly supported, or (either
> >openly or secretly) viewed as a nuisance? How does the widespread
> >objection to something that such vendors "would make
Grant Likely wrote:
> > Like initrd, some people will find they need to compile it in to the
> > kernel image to fit some bootloader they can't change, or daren't risk
> > changing in already rolled out devices that they want to update to a
> > DT-using kernel.
>
> Yes, I fully expect that. Fortu
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:02:15PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > [sni]
> > > > That's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the OS doesn't trust the
> > > > firmware, there is no pressure for the firmware to "get it right".
>
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 07:36:10PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > However, there's a lot of room for abuse here and I'm worried that if it
> > becomes widespread, we'll start seeing vendors use that as a way to do
> > some kind of HAL and hide various pla
Alan Cox wrote:
> > - Then, are we certain that there's no case where the tty layer will
> > call us with some lock held or in an atomic context ? To be honest,
> > I've totally lost track of the locking rules in tty land lately so it
> > might well be ok, but something to verify.
>
> Some of the
