Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Challenges in Upstream vs. Embargoed Development in Intel Graphics.

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1014 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:00:12AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:

> Note that the simplest solution here is to forget about upstream and
> ship on LTS kernels only. Avoids all the pain we have. And that's what
> pretty much everyone in the SoC/gfx space is actually doing, outside
> of very few exceptions like AMD&Intel. Most of the SoC drivers you see
> are reverse-engineered, so naturally they don't have to deal with
> pre-production hw fun simply because they can't even get at the hw
> this early in the cycle.

One thing I've done in the past and I know some people do currently is
to use a LTS backport as an integration point for internal testing and
development but simultaneously maintain something against -next as the
primary development platform, upstreaming anything that can be (things
like framework changes or fixes/improvements to already upstream code)
as you go.  Then when the marketing people do their thing just push out
all the patches that were held back.  That seems to work pretty well.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]