On 17 February 2017 at 12:45, Tobias Jakobi
[off-list ref] 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.

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

That's the ideal route that I was thinking of.

At the same time, if prominent DRM people believe that we can/should
turn a blind eye, so be it.
I'm not trying to make Maxime's life hard, but point out that things
feel iffy IMHO.

Thanks
Emil

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>