From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 08:03:54 +0000 Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code Message-Id: <20140930080354.GI4081@lukather> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="pe+tqlI1iYzVj1X/" List-Id: References: <20140927235601.19023.31593@quantum> <20140929080637.GB12506@ulmo> <20140929092301.GC4388@lukather> <20140929101805.GB26008@ulmo> <20140929114643.GB4081@lukather> <20140929134708.GB30998@ulmo> <20140929162814.GE4081@lukather> <20140929165842.GC5599@skynet.be> <20140929220250.GD5599@skynet.be> <20140930053900.GD29874@ulmo> In-Reply-To: <20140930053900.GD29874@ulmo> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --pe+tqlI1iYzVj1X/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 07:39:02AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > You keep bringing up the Raspberry Pi for some reason and suggest that > it is somehow inferior to sunxi. What makes you think it's less entitled > to be supported on Linux than sunxi? I don't care about the Raspberry Pi > and I equally don't care about sunxi. I don't own a Raspberry Pi and I > don't own any Allwinner hardware. What I do care about is Linux and I > want it to work well for all SoCs equally. >=20 > Perhaps if you could put aside your crusade against the Raspberry Pi for > just a second you'll realize that we're all on the same team. This isn't > a competition and I'm not trying to put a spoke in your wheel. On the > contrary, I'm actually trying to help you. We've been over this already, and I'll tell you again that you're getting this wrong. No platform is more entitled to get merged than another one. I do care about the Allwinner SoCs, and I care just as much about the broader Linux support for all the other SoCs, be it from nvidia, samsung or whatever vendor you can come up with. But you can't hide the fact that the bcm2835 still has a very limited clock support, and I really don't know about its clock tree, but I guess that if the times come when they add a more complete clock support, they will face the same issue. If the driver would have been developped initially to create a framebuffer on the Allwinner SoCs, at a time when we didn't have any clock support too, calling it only usable on sunxi wouldn't have shocked me tbh. --=20 Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com --pe+tqlI1iYzVj1X/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUKmPqAAoJEBx+YmzsjxAg3WEP/2ksSk9UcaTBA3pQkKoN0hdz 0q3BvAD2zrHfTxyokL1RAC8VrwQf/kkv1gu0mOFGMPEkeyshVhdjNG20YdqJIN3I hi8EmUrAF7Hlq+M2taSZz/2WMe46oEus/r13lK9k7llS5lgPFudz/C4yfapQYVT9 xlaAozu/v3dGSlTQ8RHpC8wUOrkHYl3xo+T6V8xMRhZ2Th0s8qJMc2cbIFKp05AU MEMmF0+KDHnchowkjr/iCjZxVlmM02ID35biabvp2AhVsZfqGHNxT2mMEEjaO37B Z9fqk+RjaSiDaaj8Z41VyP4Zk0HxemyodgA7UdqOfe/FWUrKczVaTJ/DjrMOCd+r 9UFpONm3lPpdeTHmphqXRH8aD47dmXy9I0pr4ljaF/lco+zIkmfA/ohke4COrwBY UOfFOPBrD/HFUhcIYbMA9LSzat+IEqHcRpK9QOOjSYGJDnKVoYDxyxdB9YsvxFcp n6Nkkekd6hJ6Q6SDmXd3i0r1+dc5m6YT0kMcbksLfeVKcBBAlARupXN48wvG8b4w /ueXFM6Z/8lr9iljyGKfedWThzmOSdLMS4JPugwZte3qRoMYjSP8KQc8q1O+8i4k hMrjm4ZMkUghke8YxQPpuGMiUXLi/AR/VscMU1XXaj+M5u5U4r+NQ8pdbydc9MUg Thk+/wMKsr1lMSj63BJT =+nyi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pe+tqlI1iYzVj1X/-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:03:54 +0200 Subject: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code In-Reply-To: <20140930053900.GD29874@ulmo> References: <20140927235601.19023.31593@quantum> <20140929080637.GB12506@ulmo> <20140929092301.GC4388@lukather> <20140929101805.GB26008@ulmo> <20140929114643.GB4081@lukather> <20140929134708.GB30998@ulmo> <20140929162814.GE4081@lukather> <20140929165842.GC5599@skynet.be> <20140929220250.GD5599@skynet.be> <20140930053900.GD29874@ulmo> Message-ID: <20140930080354.GI4081@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 07:39:02AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > You keep bringing up the Raspberry Pi for some reason and suggest that > it is somehow inferior to sunxi. What makes you think it's less entitled > to be supported on Linux than sunxi? I don't care about the Raspberry Pi > and I equally don't care about sunxi. I don't own a Raspberry Pi and I > don't own any Allwinner hardware. What I do care about is Linux and I > want it to work well for all SoCs equally. > > Perhaps if you could put aside your crusade against the Raspberry Pi for > just a second you'll realize that we're all on the same team. This isn't > a competition and I'm not trying to put a spoke in your wheel. On the > contrary, I'm actually trying to help you. We've been over this already, and I'll tell you again that you're getting this wrong. No platform is more entitled to get merged than another one. I do care about the Allwinner SoCs, and I care just as much about the broader Linux support for all the other SoCs, be it from nvidia, samsung or whatever vendor you can come up with. But you can't hide the fact that the bcm2835 still has a very limited clock support, and I really don't know about its clock tree, but I guess that if the times come when they add a more complete clock support, they will face the same issue. If the driver would have been developped initially to create a framebuffer on the Allwinner SoCs, at a time when we didn't have any clock support too, calling it only usable on sunxi wouldn't have shocked me tbh. -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: