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