Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

["Dennis Lan (dlan)" <dennis.yxun@gmail.com>]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013, luke.leighton  wrote:
> right - too many people contributed to this, input from jon smirl,
>
>
> wookie, maxime, tomasz, henrik, i've made a start here and will
> continue editing: this is notes for me to put forward an agenda for
> discussion:
>
> http://hands.com/~lkcl/allwinner_linux_proposal.txt
>
> i'm setting a rule that each section *has* to have a list of clear
> benefits, otherwise it'll have to be removed before it goes on to
> their Directors.
>
> so - even if there are any allwinner engineers reading this who would
> like something put forward please also speak up! :)
>
> l.
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Hi luke

     I'm not a allwinner employer :-)$. but pretty much in the same position as they are.

     I'd like to add a few comments about the risk of adopting the device tree(from allwinner side)

1) current using fdt in bootloader(uboot) is not mature, I'm not saying about passing the fdt data to kernel.

  But the bootloader itself need information from device tree, say boot0/1 phase (boot device type, DDR initialization...)

  since fdt is not ready, and SRAM space is very limited ... I'm afraid 'fex' may co-exist with device tree.

  still, they receive benefits if they can adopt device tree, at least minimal the kernel side migration effort

  Generally this info already been pointed out by steppen warren in previous email...

2) device tree may not been understood by third vendors (who previus produce shoes or ? :-$), 

  they are real old 'Fex' scheme user, they like edit the data in windows with dos format

  So, how to fill this gaps, make them happy? Creat another tool to handle device tree modification?

  Then it's another price they have to pay...

Dennis Lan