From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Frias Subject: Re: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 18:26:23 +0200 Message-ID: <57D6D72F.3080605@laposte.net> References: <57BDAF2E.10502@laposte.net> <57D69FB1.2020801@laposte.net> <20160912123809.GB13741@leverpostej> <57D6AA54.6000208@laposte.net> <20160912135549.GA14165@leverpostej> <57D6D2A9.3010006@laposte.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <57D6D2A9.3010006-QFKgK+z4sOrR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: devicetree , Mason , Timur Tabi , Linux ARM , LKML List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.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