Hello Maxime, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:43:06PM +0100, Tobias Jakobi wrote: >> I was wondering about the following. Wasn't there some strict >> requirement about code going upstream, which also included that there >> was a full open-source driver stack for it? >> >> I don't see how this is the case for Mali, neither in the kernel, nor in >> userspace. I'm aware that the Mali kernel driver is open-source. But it >> is not upstream, maintained out of tree, and won't land upstream in its >> current form (no resemblence to a DRM driver at all). And let's not talk >> about the userspace part. >> >> So, why should this be here? > > The device tree is a representation of the hardware itself. The state > of the driver support doesn't change the hardware you're running on, > just like your BIOS/UEFI on x86 won't change the device it reports to > Linux based on whether it has a driver for it. Like Emil already said, the new bindings and the DT entries are solely introduced to support a proprietary out-of-tree module. The current workflow when introducing new DT entries is the following: - upstream a driver that uses the entries - THEN add the new entries I'm against adding such entries without having any upstream "consumer". With best wishes, Tobias > So yes, unfortunately, we don't have a driver upstream at the > moment. But that doesn't prevent us from describing the hardware > accurately. > > Maxime > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
