From: sf84@laposte.net (Sebastian Frias)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 18:26:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57D6D72F.3080605@laposte.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57D6D2A9.3010006@laposte.net>
On 09/12/2016 06:07 PM, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 09/12/2016 04:01 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> 3rd parties could choose to write a driver (as opposed to use say, a user-mode
>>> library) if it fits their programming model better, if they think they would
>>> have better performance, or other reasons.
>>
>> A vendor can always choose to "add value" in this manner. The general
>> expectation of *some* driver being upstreamed remains.
>
> Yes, that's the idea.
Just to clarify, what I meant is that, using the DT as the authoritative
source of HW description is a way to "add value" to everybody, because both,
3rd-parties and the open-source community get the same information.
This creates the conditions for drivers to exist, with the expectation that
eventually said drivers would be upstreamed.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sebastian Frias <sf84-QFKgK+z4sOrR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
Cc: devicetree <devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Mason <slash.tmp-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur-N01EOCouUvQ@public.gmane.org>,
Linux ARM
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 18:26:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57D6D72F.3080605@laposte.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57D6D2A9.3010006-QFKgK+z4sOrR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org>
On 09/12/2016 06:07 PM, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 09/12/2016 04:01 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> 3rd parties could choose to write a driver (as opposed to use say, a user-mode
>>> library) if it fits their programming model better, if they think they would
>>> have better performance, or other reasons.
>>
>> A vendor can always choose to "add value" in this manner. The general
>> expectation of *some* driver being upstreamed remains.
>
> Yes, that's the idea.
Just to clarify, what I meant is that, using the DT as the authoritative
source of HW description is a way to "add value" to everybody, because both,
3rd-parties and the open-source community get the same information.
This creates the conditions for drivers to exist, with the expectation that
eventually said drivers would be upstreamed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>, Timur Tabi <timur@tabi.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 18:26:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57D6D72F.3080605@laposte.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57D6D2A9.3010006@laposte.net>
On 09/12/2016 06:07 PM, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 09/12/2016 04:01 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> 3rd parties could choose to write a driver (as opposed to use say, a user-mode
>>> library) if it fits their programming model better, if they think they would
>>> have better performance, or other reasons.
>>
>> A vendor can always choose to "add value" in this manner. The general
>> expectation of *some* driver being upstreamed remains.
>
> Yes, that's the idea.
Just to clarify, what I meant is that, using the DT as the authoritative
source of HW description is a way to "add value" to everybody, because both,
3rd-parties and the open-source community get the same information.
This creates the conditions for drivers to exist, with the expectation that
eventually said drivers would be upstreamed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-12 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-24 14:29 ARM,SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers Sebastian Frias
2016-08-24 14:29 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-08-28 20:36 ` ARM, SoC: " Timur Tabi
2016-08-28 20:36 ` ARM,SoC: " Timur Tabi
2016-08-28 20:36 ` ARM, SoC: " Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 12:29 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 12:29 ` ARM,SoC: " Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 12:38 ` ARM, SoC: " Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 12:38 ` ARM,SoC: " Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 12:38 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 13:15 ` ARM, SoC: " Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 13:15 ` ARM,SoC: " Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 13:23 ` ARM, SoC: " Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 13:23 ` ARM,SoC: " Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 14:01 ` ARM, SoC: " Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 14:01 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 14:26 ` Warner Losh
2016-09-12 14:26 ` Warner Losh
2016-09-12 14:26 ` Warner Losh
2016-09-12 16:29 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:29 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:45 ` Warner Losh
2016-09-12 16:45 ` Warner Losh
2016-09-12 16:49 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 16:49 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 17:07 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 17:07 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 17:06 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 17:06 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 17:06 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 16:07 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:07 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:07 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:21 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 16:21 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 16:21 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-12 16:26 ` Sebastian Frias [this message]
2016-09-12 16:26 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:26 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-12 16:56 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 16:56 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 16:56 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 10:04 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 10:04 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 10:04 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 11:37 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-13 11:37 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-13 11:37 ` Timur Tabi
2016-09-13 13:23 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 13:23 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 13:23 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 13:12 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 13:12 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 13:12 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 14:22 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:22 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:22 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:51 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 14:51 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 14:51 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-14 8:32 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-14 8:32 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-14 8:32 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:55 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:55 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 14:55 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-13 15:47 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 15:47 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-13 15:47 ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-14 8:24 ` Sebastian Frias
2016-09-14 8:24 ` Sebastian Frias
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=57D6D72F.3080605@laposte.net \
--to=sf84@laposte.net \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.