From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.shareable.org (mail2.shareable.org [80.68.89.115]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3287510082C for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:42:18 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:41:51 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Mike Rapoport Subject: Re: Request review of device tree documentation Message-ID: <20100616114151.GB15054@shareable.org> References: <20100614160201.GD9550@shareable.org> <4C165FD1.6080505@firmworks.com> <4C186AA8.4040709@compulab.co.il> <4C186B7B.1060308@firmworks.com> <4C186C72.2020506@compulab.co.il> <4C187013.5000400@firmworks.com> <4C18738C.4090809@compulab.co.il> <4C187FF0.5020806@firmworks.com> <4C18A9C7.5070800@compulab.co.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4C18A9C7.5070800@compulab.co.il> Cc: Nicolas Pitre , microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, devicetree-discuss , linuxppc-dev , Mitch Bradley , Dan Malek , Jeremy Kerr , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, David Gibson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 extensive use of" > >mesh with that view? > > I cannot tell for the entire Linux community, but from what I know, such > vendors are not much welcomed in the community. As far as I can tell, many such vendors don't have much interest in contributing to the Linux community either. They use Linux code, glue in their black-box binary modules and/or HALs, and engage poorly with the community. It is not just end-product makers, but upstream component, board and SDK manufacturers too. -- Jamie From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamie@shareable.org (Jamie Lokier) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:41:51 +0100 Subject: Request review of device tree documentation In-Reply-To: <4C18A9C7.5070800@compulab.co.il> References: <20100614160201.GD9550@shareable.org> <4C165FD1.6080505@firmworks.com> <4C186AA8.4040709@compulab.co.il> <4C186B7B.1060308@firmworks.com> <4C186C72.2020506@compulab.co.il> <4C187013.5000400@firmworks.com> <4C18738C.4090809@compulab.co.il> <4C187FF0.5020806@firmworks.com> <4C18A9C7.5070800@compulab.co.il> Message-ID: <20100616114151.GB15054@shareable.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 extensive use of" > >mesh with that view? > > I cannot tell for the entire Linux community, but from what I know, such > vendors are not much welcomed in the community. As far as I can tell, many such vendors don't have much interest in contributing to the Linux community either. They use Linux code, glue in their black-box binary modules and/or HALs, and engage poorly with the community. It is not just end-product makers, but upstream component, board and SDK manufacturers too. -- Jamie From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: Request review of device tree documentation Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:41:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20100616114151.GB15054@shareable.org> References: <20100614160201.GD9550@shareable.org> <4C165FD1.6080505@firmworks.com> <4C186AA8.4040709@compulab.co.il> <4C186B7B.1060308@firmworks.com> <4C186C72.2020506@compulab.co.il> <4C187013.5000400@firmworks.com> <4C18738C.4090809@compulab.co.il> <4C187FF0.5020806@firmworks.com> <4C18A9C7.5070800@compulab.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C18A9C7.5070800-UTxiZqZC01RS1MOuV/RT9w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Nicolas Pitre , microblaze-uclinux-rVRm/Wmeqae7NGdpmJTKYQ@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss , linuxppc-dev , Dan Malek , Jeremy Kerr , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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 extensive use of" > >mesh with that view? > > I cannot tell for the entire Linux community, but from what I know, such > vendors are not much welcomed in the community. As far as I can tell, many such vendors don't have much interest in contributing to the Linux community either. They use Linux code, glue in their black-box binary modules and/or HALs, and engage poorly with the community. It is not just end-product makers, but upstream component, board and SDK manufacturers too. -- Jamie