Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))
- To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
- Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org>, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, debian-arm <debian-arm@lists.debian.org>, "jonsmirl@gmail.com" <jonsmirl@gmail.com>, Linux on small ARM machines <arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk>, debian-kernel <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))
- From: "luke.leighton" <luke.leighton@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:56:26 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] CAPweEDyfrA9z55Yqt8jC8j=e=G_gAH_FA0XrOLxExajwQxN8rQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 201306062222.53780.arnd@arndb.de>
- References: <[🔎] 51AFA6DD.3000202@wwwdotorg.org> <[🔎] CAOesGMgqxhG45NyCfpHc_0uHS+_Gn-hGZm-+CRvK2EEf1AGTow@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 20130606172810.GE14209@lukather> <[🔎] 201306062222.53780.arnd@arndb.de>
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Thursday 06 June 2013, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> So yes, Allwinner has an evil vendor tree (c), with a solution similar yet
>> inferior (because not generic enough) to the device tree, but they show
>> interest on going down the mainline road.
>
> Right, and of course there is nothing special about that, everybody starts
> out with they own even vendor tree (c), and as hardware support gets merged
> upstream, the diff gets smaller, even though the code in the mainline
> kernel is normally very different from what they started out with.
*sigh* except if that idiot manager [whom we're keenly aware of]
orders them to delete absolutely everything (find . -name '*sunxi*' |
xargs git rm) and overwrite it with their internally-managed tree,
causing absolute mayhem in the process...
> Chances are actually that the Allwinner (A10/A13/A20, not A31) platform may
> end up being the first modern one that is fully supported upstream including
> a GPU driver, since it is one of the obvious targets for the
> reverse-engineering efforts.
yes. http://libv.livejournal.com/24735.html
> Ironically (given NVIDIA's reputation), the
> Tegra platform is the strongest competitor I see in that race at the moment.
at $7.50 for a dual-core processor, and i am *not* going to tell you
the quad-core price, i don't believe it can be considered to be a
race, or even a competition. they're *OUT*, man. really.
oh wait - did you mean for "1st to have fully supported upstream GPU
driver"? that would be veery nice.
> For all I can tell, things are progressing nicely, given that it's currently
> a volunteer effort. If anyone needs things to move faster, I'd recommend
> them to send money to free-electrons.com.
i'll put that on the list of recommendations, but - again - i need a
list of clear benefits and returns as to why that should happen.
l.
Reply to: