[Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))
henrik at henriknordstrom.net
Thu Jun 6 00:32:32 BST 2013
ons 2013-06-05 klockan 23:20 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
> taking this as a rhetorical question (kinda), what i believe jon
> proposed would have a knock-on effect of requiring that boot0 and
> boot1 be converted *away* from script.fex and onto DT. therefore,
> automatically, all tools must now be converted to understand DT not
> fex. that includes the (proprietary) equivalents of fex2bin and
> bin2fex [*1]
> but, i could be wrong.
I don't see it that black/white. It's a sliding scale.
The fex can express what they need to have configurable quite well, and
is quite fine as a easy almost fool proof interface for the ODM
"firmware engineer" that adopts their Android SDK to build an image for
his own device.
The change to DT is mainly kernel land, and to some extent u-boot.
Both worlds can easily be mixed by generating the actual DT based on the
fex, a DT template and a small tool to fill in the template from the
> ok: great. so we have something that i can potentially propose to
> them. now: what reason can i give that they should accept this?
> what's the biggest incentive for them, here, to make these changes?
> what would they gain?
By that time mainline kernel IS using DT fully, so by using DT they gain
the flexibility in configuratoin and tuning of mainline drivers that is
found in DT, and less headaches in how to get those drivers properly
configured without using DT.
And by migrating their drivers over to DT as well they benefit from a
single in-kernel configuration mechanism.
And long term we might see tools emerge that makes DT editing as easy as
fex editing is today, eleminating the need for the fex.
More information about the arm-netbook