From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jamie@shareable.org>
Received: from mail2.shareable.org (mail2.shareable.org [80.68.89.115])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3287510082C
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:42:18 +1000 (EST)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:41:51 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Mike Rapoport <mike@compulab.co.il>
Subject: Re: Request review of device tree documentation
Message-ID: <20100616114151.GB15054@shareable.org>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006141044510.13427@xanadu.home>
	<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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <4C18A9C7.5070800@compulab.co.il>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au,
	devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>, Mitch Bradley <wmb@firmworks.com>,
	Dan Malek <ppc6dev@digitaldans.com>,
	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

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