On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:45:44PM +0100, Tobias Jakobi wrote:

Hello Maxime,

Maxime Ripard wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:43:06PM +0100, Tobias Jakobi wrote:

quoted

I was wondering about the following. Wasn't there some strict
requirement about code going upstream, which also included that there
was a full open-source driver stack for it?

I don't see how this is the case for Mali, neither in the kernel, nor in
userspace. I'm aware that the Mali kernel driver is open-source. But it
is not upstream, maintained out of tree, and won't land upstream in its
current form (no resemblence to a DRM driver at all). And let's not talk
about the userspace part.

So, why should this be here?

The device tree is a representation of the hardware itself. The state
of the driver support doesn't change the hardware you're running on,
just like your BIOS/UEFI on x86 won't change the device it reports to
Linux based on whether it has a driver for it.

Like Emil already said, the new bindings and the DT entries are solely
introduced to support a proprietary out-of-tree module.

No. This new binding and the DT entries are solely introduced to
describe a device found in a number of SoCs, just like any other DT
binding we have.

The current workflow when introducing new DT entries is the following:
- upstream a driver that uses the entries
- THEN add the new entries

And that's never been the preferred workflow, for *any* patches.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20170217/8cdb7cbf/attachment.sig>