On 30/09/2021 14:10, Tomasz Figa wrote: > 2021年9月30日(木) 20:51 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> >> >> Is that the same as exporting symbols to framework APIs? >> >> Since this is already a method GKI uses to allow external modules to >> interact with the core kernel/frameworks. However, it's not possible >> to upstream these without an upstream user for each one. > > Not necessary the core frameworks, could also be changing the ways the > existing drivers register to allow additional drivers to extend the > functionality rather than completely overwrite them. Yes, the first user could be within the kernel after modifying some of the drivers. > It's really hard > to tell what the right way would be without knowing the exact things > they find missing in the upstream drivers. As for upstream users, this > is exactly the point - upstream is a bidirectional effort, one takes > from it and should contribute things back. > > Generally, the subsystems being mentioned here are so basic (clock, > pinctrl, rtc), that I really can't imagine what kind of rocket science > one might want to hide for competitive reasons... If it's for an > entire SoC, I wonder why Intel and AMD don't have similar concerns and > contribute support for their newest hardware far before the release. Lee used the argument of not-disclosing-edge-hw but I also don't see much of it in the case of few drivers needed to be overridden. Just bunch of registers for the same stuff we have sine 8 years. Rather the vendor does not want to commit effort towards upstreaming these... Best regards, Krzysztof
