Freescale Linux BSP review

Arnd Bergmann arnd at arndb.de
Mon Dec 20 19:29:05 UTC 2010


On Monday 20 December 2010 19:07:30 Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > I also do not think that it is at all kernel policy to disallow kernel
> > drivers which do not have opensource userspace components. In fact,
> > Linus Torvalds begs to differ on this matter. The fact of the matter
> > is that the driver lives now, Qualcomm have it in their upstream,
> > Freescale have it in their upstream, Linaro are going to fetch from
> > that. It doesn't need to go all the way to stable, because people can
> > compile their own kernels if they want (and Linaro is there provide
> > the source to do that with the best interoperability with the silicon
> > vendors' chips as possible).
> 
> I was just expressing my opinion on upstream, if i see this driver
> showing up on lkml i will reply with a nak and explain why (pretty
> much same argument as here). I don't have any authority on linux
> kernel but as far as i understand it, it's about reviewing what's gets
> in, so i hope my review opinion would matter (what ever the out come
> is).

There is a broad agreement on disallowing new kernel to userspace
interfaces in the upstream kernel unless there is an application
using it that is both open source and considered useful.

I don't think Linaro as a group takes a position or should take
a position on closed source user space at all -- we just don't
need to bother with it because we have enough work to do on free
components. However, we have a policy on kernel code and that is
as I mentioned before that we don't take code unless it's about to
go upstream. In this case, upstream doesn't take the driver, so
Linaro won't either.

	Arnd



More information about the linaro-dev mailing list