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

[luke.leighton]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> On Thursday 06 June 2013, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> So yes, Allwinner has an evil vendor tree (c), with a solution similar yet
>> inferior (because not generic enough) to the device tree, but they show
>> interest on going down the mainline road.
>
> Right, and of course there is nothing special about that, everybody starts
> out with they own even vendor tree (c), and as hardware support gets merged
> upstream, the diff gets smaller, even though the code in the mainline
> kernel is normally very different from what they started out with.

 *sigh* except if that idiot manager [whom we're keenly aware of]
orders them to delete absolutely everything (find . -name '*sunxi*' |
xargs git rm) and overwrite it with their internally-managed tree,
causing absolute mayhem in the process...


> Chances are actually that the Allwinner (A10/A13/A20, not A31) platform may
> end up being the first modern one that is fully supported upstream including
> a GPU driver, since it is one of the obvious targets for the
> reverse-engineering efforts.

 yes. http://libv.livejournal.com/24735.html

> Ironically (given NVIDIA's reputation), the
> Tegra platform is the strongest competitor I see in that race at the moment.

 at $7.50 for a dual-core processor, and i am *not* going to tell you
the quad-core price, i don't believe it can be considered to be a
race, or even a competition.  they're *OUT*, man.   really.

 oh wait - did you mean for "1st to have fully supported upstream GPU
driver"?  that would be veery nice.

> For all I can tell, things are progressing nicely, given that it's currently
> a volunteer effort. If anyone needs things to move faster, I'd recommend
> them to send money to free-electrons.com.

 i'll put that on the list of recommendations, but - again - i need a
list of clear benefits and returns as to why that should happen.

l.