On 17 February 2017 at 12:45, Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > That's the ideal route that I was thinking of. At the same time, if prominent DRM people believe that we can/should turn a blind eye, so be it. I'm not trying to make Maxime's life hard, but point out that things feel iffy IMHO. Thanks Emil -- 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>
