Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))
luke.leighton wrote:> so. > > coming back to what you said earlier: i'm formulating what to say to > allwinner [and need to pre-send something by monday so that they can > consider it before the meeting]. so far, it consists of: > > * device-tree is what the linux kernel community has come up with, it > is equivalent to FEX. > > * the linux kernel community would like to apologise for not > consulting with you (allwinner) on the decision to only accept device > tree apologize? WTF? > * allwinner and the linux and sunxi community therefore need to work > closer together, we propose: > > * {insert proposals here} 1) switch to DT 2) there is no 2) > 3 days left on the clock. tick tock -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51b19c85.9090...@gmail.com
Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))
luke.leighton wrote: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote: 4 days? WTF? since when did setting an ultimatum to the kernel community work? i was only informed of the opportunity 2 days ago, vladimir. this is an important meeting. of course the linux kernel community is entirely free to: * completely ignore this opportunity * continue to complain that soc vendors do not follow their unilaterally-decided rules SoC vendors are free to join the discussion, and many SoC vendors are part of the kernel community, so calling this unilateral is plain wrong. 3 days remaining on the clock. what catastrophic thing will happen when the time runs out? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51b19046.5040...@gmail.com
Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))
luke.leighton wrote: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote: tor 2013-06-06 klockan 00:54 +0100 skrev luke.leighton: > Not really the case. Actually the opposite. DT have this as well, and > integrated in device probing. Allwinner need to hack every driver used > to add their gpio requests to have pinmuxing triggered. augh. ok. solutions. what are the solutions here? What I said before. idea: hook into devicetree gpio functions to allow script-fex gpio functions to gain access in a separate module? that sort of thing. Go with DT for the kernel. There is no need for two configuration mechanisms doing the same thing. Disguise it in fex form (and translator) if too hard for people with a DOS editior to configure. what methods for doing that. i need proposals. 4 days on the clock. 4 days? WTF? since when did setting an ultimatum to the kernel community work? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51b085c6.3000...@gmail.com