On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:45:44PM +0100, Tobias Jakobi 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. No. This new binding and the DT entries are solely introduced to describe a device found in a number of SoCs, just like any other DT binding we have. > The current workflow when introducing new DT entries is the following: > - upstream a driver that uses the entries > - THEN add the new entries And that's never been the preferred workflow, for *any* patches. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
