From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: "Bird, Timothy" To: NeilBrown , Mark Brown Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 18:33:16 +0000 Message-ID: References: <57C78BE9.30009@linaro.org> <20160902012531.GB28461@sasha-lappy> <20160902095417.GJ3950@sirena.org.uk> <1472827326.2519.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <87twdv9l0v.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20160905110416.GV3950@sirena.org.uk> <87a8fm9dce.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> In-Reply-To: <87a8fm9dce.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ltsi-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [LTSI-dev] [Stable kernel] feature backporting collaboration List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > -----Original Message----- > From: ltsi-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:ltsi-dev- > bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of NeilBrown > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 3:44 PM > To: Mark Brown > Cc: ltsi-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; ksummit- > discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Levin, Alexander > ; James Bottomley > > Subject: Re: [LTSI-dev] [Ksummit-discuss] [Stable kernel] feature backpor= ting > collaboration >=20 > On Mon, Sep 05 2016, Mark Brown wrote: >=20 > > [ Unknown signature status ] > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:45:52AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 03 2016, Bird, Timothy wrote: > > > >> > Where we are now with some of these SoCs is at millions of lines of > >> > code out-of-tree. It's being reduced, slowly, but there are still > >> > significant areas where the mainline kernel just doesn't have the > >> > support needed for shipping product. My pet peeve is support for > >> > charging over USB, where Linaro has had a patch set > >> > being stalled and/or ignored by the USB maintainer for 2 years!! > > > >> Do you have a link to that? I have an interest in charging over USB. > > > > This is it: > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/1/35 > > > > it's been more like one year than two and there has been progress but > > there's also been an awful lot of latency in the process too. >=20 > Really? That is worthy of a "pet peeve"? > The patch set does highlight an important area of missing functionality, > but doesn't (IMO) display much understanding of the problem space. I'm > not surprised it hasn't made progress. First - thanks for responding to the patch. I'm hopeful it will see moveme= nt. My "pet peeve" (which *is* a bit histrionic, I suppose) is not so much abou= t this individual patch (though IMHO it's taken longer to get worked out than it s= hould have). Rather, I find it shocking that the mainline kernel is missing such a funda= mental feature that is critical to mobile devices. I brought this up at the kerne= l summit last year (so it's not a new rant for me). But basically, one can not run = a mainline kernel on any phone that I'm aware of, and charge the device. This means that hobbyists are locked out of experimenting with mainline on = their devices (unless they have the fortitude to manually swap batteries, or swit= ch to a vendor kernel when they need to charge). IMHO this is just too much of a= burden. I mean, you might expect that some functionality of the phone might be miss= ing if you went all-mainline, or pure open source (like proprietary camera modules= , or NFC support). You'll probably not have access to trivial things like the touch= screen or=20 display ;-). But sheesh - to not have your device last longer than a few h= ours before you have to do some kludgy work-around, if you want to use mainline on it? That's retarded. IMHO this is blocking SoC mainlining efforts by non-vendor people more than= any other single issue. -- Tim