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

[luke.leighton]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Oliver Schinagl
<oliver+list at schinagl.nl> wrote:

>>   ok - i think this will come about naturally, if the developers are
>> permitted to interact freely with the free software community.  that's
>> just been added this morning btw.  if you disagree and have something
>> more specific in mind, please could you create a separate section that
>> i can drop into the proposal?
>
> Well being able to talk directly to their team will be an open door for
> questions, so if we can ask them, yeah that'll work just as well. They can
> then internally find out if they don't know.

 although we don't know the precise details or arrangement, looking at
e.g. the mentor graphics usb the similarities between the header files
with the register details i'd agree with the assessment that allwinner
has a musb hard macro in their SoCs. .... but that doesn't mean that
they've received vast amounts of documentation, and even if they did
it'd be under NDA.

so, even if you asked the question, oliver, they may not legally be
permitted to answer, let alone be in a position to do so.  in that
regard, having spotted that it's musb we're doing them an enormous
favour by pointing this out.

for those hard macros that they've developed in-house, that's a
different matter.

the point about the cedarx not having a kernel framework, that's well
noted.  thanks oliver.

meeting's in 1 weeks' time - keep it coming, i need to get prepped.
the rush of the past few days was for the pre-meeting proposal so that
*they're* prepped.

l.