Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

[Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

Luke,

On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:24:57 luke.leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 
wrote:
> > I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner code
> > to DT (as it has been suggested in this thread several times
> > already), as this is the only hardware description method supported
> > by ARM Linux.
>  i repeat again: please state, explicitly and unequivocably that you -
> linux kernel developers - are happy that the reach of linux and
> gnu/linux OSes is dramatically reduced due to this intransigent
> position.
> 
>  or, tomasz, please state that you, tomasz, represent each and every
> one of the linux kernel developers so that i do not need to keep
> asking.

I do not represent all linux kernel developers by any means. I am just 
stating current policy of SoC/board support maintained by ARM Linux, which 
is common for all Linux kernel devlopers, or at least ARM Linux kernel 
developers.

Personally I am happy with numerous companies backing this policy and not 
making problems like this with Allwinner and I am really surprised that 
you are supporting a troublesome company like this.

There are many other SoC vendors making low cost SoCs, like Rockchip, 
Boxchip, Telechips. Maybe they would be better candidates for being 
promoted as vendors of choice for hardware running free software? (Just 
saying, as I do not know anything about their view on this. There is a lot 
of cheap tablets built using their products as well.)

Best regards,
Tomasz