From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org (Matthew Garrett) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 03:56:51 +0000 Subject: ACPI In-Reply-To: <2940EDD8-0EE7-4D61-96F7-3D78D5A52644@jonmasters.org> References: <528FC5C1.1080403@jonmasters.org> <528FCEA6.1060602@jonmasters.org> <201311231011.45892.arnd@arndb.de> <20131123183904.GB20790@obsidianresearch.com> <20131123230303.GA5212@srcf.ucam.org> <2940EDD8-0EE7-4D61-96F7-3D78D5A52644@jonmasters.org> Message-ID: <20131124035651.GA7580@srcf.ucam.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:52:25PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > Matthew, good points! Suffice it to say many productive conversations > have occurred recently with regard to openness. I am constrained > indeed, and somewhat willingly because that is the only way to engage > with everyone who might (or might not) be involved in the ARM > ecosystem in the timeframe that will matter in the medium/longer term > (this is a decade+ long story). As you know, I'm a huge fan of > standards (especially openly published ones), and in particular of > having one way to do things that will work for an entire ecosystem > (beyond just Linux), because that's how we get to an open platform > that anyone can target. That's not the natural course things would > take without steering. In the ARM space, the natural course might be > to create vertical solutions that, while awesome, are harder to target > with a general purpose one-size-fits-all OS story. I'll look forward > to seeing more announcements coming soon. That seems to be a very verbose way to say "We have no plans to make sure this is going to work for upstream Linux". I'm disappointed to see Red Hat play along with this. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org