On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 04:21:48PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > What people think they were sold was the idea that they shouldn't have > > to write driver code or upstream things, something with more AML like > > capabilities (not realising that AML works partly because ACPI hugely > > constrains system design). > This makes a lot of sense. > I suppose what we need to think about is the bigger question of why > people/companies/managers are so worried about working upstream > that they will go to lengths to avoid it and jump at any chance of > raising a wall of abstraction between their internal development and > the in-kernel software development. > I think of this as vendor/community couples therapy or something, > there is some form of deep disconnect or mistrust going on at times > and having worked on both ends myself I would think I could > understand it but I can't. In this case I think this is partly due to the way people were sold on the DT conversion - part of the sales pitch was that you'd not need to get board support upstream, which is a useful thing if you want to run things like LTS or distro kernels on newer hardware.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
