Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))
- To: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>
- Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org>, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, debian-arm@lists.debian.org, "jonsmirl@gmail.com" <jonsmirl@gmail.com>, Linux on small ARM machines <arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk>, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
- 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: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 10:08:50 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] CAPweEDwON7x-FrqUrvKDNXu3nCYOgrEzY9V5q8zxvoe6kWKCtA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 4247099.i8S79t0Pua@flatron>
- References: <[🔎] CAPweEDx3mAy40BZrzrKPRbvg7vKMj7KevDQ3m_v4p6Yo50eSGg@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 20130607205940.4816fed5@skate> <[🔎] CAPweEDxtC+OamcpVEQ3BULbN88hSJzKoi0fkNLBAdZD04LQCNQ@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 4247099.i8S79t0Pua@flatron>
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that the discussion went off from "you stupid kernel developers
*lol*. i get that summary ["you said people were stupid!!!"] a lot.
i don't quite understand where it comes from, otherwise i would stop
doing it :)
> adopted DeviceTree without even asking a closed company about their
> proprietary solution, which does the same" to something a bit more
> constructive, let me point some of the benefits.
> [snip...]
ahh, magic. these have gone straight into that proposal. i think
the best ones - the gems - are the test-coverage and formally allowing
public interaction.
the test coverage because it will reduce the risk of errors in the
silicon [you never know when developing both hardware and software
where the bug might be] as well as reduce the development time and
development costs.
the public interaction (which i was going to ask thomas and maxime
about, this morning) because it means a much faster feedback loop.
i've been trying to think of ways to link "if you do X it will result
in more sales and reduce risk" to the discussion, and i think you
finally hit it tomasz, so thank you.
l.
Reply to: