[Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

[luke.leighton]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Luke,
>
> On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:24:57 luke.leighton wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> > I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner code
>> > to DT (as it has been suggested in this thread several times
>> > already), as this is the only hardware description method supported
>> > by ARM Linux.
>>  i repeat again: please state, explicitly and unequivocably that you -
>> linux kernel developers - are happy that the reach of linux and
>> gnu/linux OSes is dramatically reduced due to this intransigent
>> position.
>>
>>  or, tomasz, please state that you, tomasz, represent each and every
>> one of the linux kernel developers so that i do not need to keep
>> asking.
>
> I do not represent all linux kernel developers by any means. I am just
> stating current policy of SoC/board support maintained by ARM Linux, which
> is common for all Linux kernel devlopers, or at least ARM Linux kernel
> developers.
>
> Personally I am happy with numerous companies backing this policy and not
> making problems like this with Allwinner and I am really surprised that
> you are supporting a troublesome company like this.

 you've not read what i've written tomasz.

> There are many other SoC vendors making low cost SoCs, like Rockchip,
> Boxchip,

 boxchip *is* allwinner.

> Telechips. Maybe they would be better candidates for being
> promoted as vendors of choice for hardware running free software?

 no, because they're not selling at a low-enough price with
high-enough integration.  telechips and rockchip don't have the market
penetration.

 and many other reasons.


> (Just
> saying, as I do not know anything about their view on this. There is a lot
> of cheap tablets built using their products as well.)
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
>