* Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline @ 2010-10-30 18:18 Elvis Dowson 2010-11-02 21:25 ` Janakiram Sistla 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Elvis Dowson @ 2010-10-30 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, I was wondering what the long term implications of android development being forked from the linux mainline are? Android support was removed from 2.6.33 onwards, and development still continues for 2.6.35, by reverting the commit that deleted android from the mainline. One could argue that android gave linux a solid boost widespread adoption for mobile embedded devices, and its use would continue to grow exponentially with time, more than plain vanilla linux for embedded devices. Was removing android from the linux kernel mainline a mistake, in retrospect? Best regards, Elvis Dowson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-10-30 18:18 Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-02 21:25 ` Janakiram Sistla 2010-11-06 18:12 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Janakiram Sistla @ 2010-11-02 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Elvis Dowson; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Elvis Dowson <elvis.dowson@mac.com> wrote: > Hi, > I was wondering what the long term implications of android development being forked from the linux mainline are? > > Android support was removed from 2.6.33 onwards, and development still continues for 2.6.35, by reverting the commit that deleted android from the mainline. > > One could argue that android gave linux a solid boost widespread adoption for mobile embedded devices, and its use would continue to grow exponentially with time, more than plain vanilla linux for embedded devices. > > Was removing android from the linux kernel mainline a mistake, in retrospect? Might be your point is true but,if one see the amount of code that went in main line or tried to push to main line is mere.Thats unfortunate. http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/android-kernel-problems.html Regards, Ram. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-02 21:25 ` Janakiram Sistla @ 2010-11-06 18:12 ` Greg KH 2010-11-06 19:22 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-07 8:38 ` Elvis Dowson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-06 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Elvis Dowson; +Cc: Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 02:25:31PM -0700, Janakiram Sistla wrote: > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Elvis Dowson <elvis.dowson@mac.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > ? ? ? I was wondering what the long term implications of android development being forked from the linux mainline are? > > > > Android support was removed from 2.6.33 onwards, and development still continues for 2.6.35, by reverting the commit that deleted android from the mainline. > > > > One could argue that android gave linux a solid boost widespread adoption for mobile embedded devices, and its use would continue to grow exponentially with time, more than plain vanilla linux for embedded devices. > > > > Was removing android from the linux kernel mainline a mistake, in retrospect? Are you willing to maintain the android kernel code in the mainline kernel tree? If so, I will be glad to add it back in, but as no one was willing to do the work, it was removed. It's as simple as that. thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-06 18:12 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-06 19:22 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-06 19:40 ` Anca Emanuel 2010-11-06 23:09 ` Greg KH 2010-11-07 8:38 ` Elvis Dowson 1 sibling, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-06 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 11:12:02AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > Are you willing to maintain the android kernel code in the mainline > kernel tree? If so, I will be glad to add it back in, but as no one was > willing to do the work, it was removed. It's as simple as that. Note that whoever needs maintain the Android kernel code in mainline needs to be working with both the Android kernel developers as well as the upstream maintainers, in hopes of finding a way to find a path which meets the requirements of both the android kernel developers and the upstream kernel maintainers. Otherwise, it's highly likely that no forward progress will get made, and the code will get yanked from staging after 6-9 months of no forward progress. Given that the Android kernel developers have already spent upwards of ten times the amount of engineering hours it would take forward port their kernel patches to each upstream kernel version for the next several years, finding a path that meets their requirements as well as those of the upstream kernel maintainers may not be a trivial thing. Also keep in mind that someone no less than Linus Torvalds has said that sometimes forks are good, and that the _freedom_ to fork is critical. But if anyone feels that figuring out some way to make the android kernel patches (a) upstreamable, and (b) compatible with android's userspace is their itch to scratch, the other part of the open source ethos is that they are certainly free to try. - Ted P.S. I speak for myself, and not for my employer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-06 19:22 ` Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-06 19:40 ` Anca Emanuel 2010-11-06 23:40 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-06 23:42 ` Janakiram Sistla 2010-11-06 23:09 ` Greg KH 1 sibling, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Anca Emanuel @ 2010-11-06 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List I think you need to see this: https://review.source.android.com/#change,18761 And this: http://galaxytab.samsungmobile.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-06 19:40 ` Anca Emanuel @ 2010-11-06 23:40 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-06 23:52 ` david 2010-11-06 23:42 ` Janakiram Sistla 1 sibling, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-06 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anca Emanuel Cc: Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 09:40:34PM +0200, Anca Emanuel wrote: > I think you need to see this: https://review.source.android.com/#change,18761 > And this: http://galaxytab.samsungmobile.com/ What about them? Yes, the Android developers are pushing changes to mainstream where it makes sense; they were doing this before the wakelocks contrversy, and they're continuing to do it now. But in the case of wakelocks, it may be that it's going to have to be a case of "agree to disagree". All distributions, including Red Hat and SLES has in the shipped product with patches that have never hit mainstream, and in some cases, will never get merged with mainstream. A good example in the past was the 4G/4G patch. Another one, which is still on-going, is the Systemtap/utrace patches. Yet no one is killing megawatts worth of electrons about how Red Hat and SLES are forking the kernel. They push patches upstream where they can, and where they can't --- they do what they need to do to satisify and delight their customers. (Heck, Sony is still using a 2.2 kernel for some of their products with a huge bunch of patches and no one is toasting them for forking the kernel....) Move along, there's nothing to see. Other that money for journalists/bloggers who are gunning for advertising clicks by whipping up controversy where IMHO, none deserves to exist. - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-06 23:40 ` Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-06 23:52 ` david 2010-11-07 0:03 ` Ted Ts'o 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: david @ 2010-11-06 23:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o Cc: Anca Emanuel, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 09:40:34PM +0200, Anca Emanuel wrote: >> I think you need to see this: https://review.source.android.com/#change,18761 >> And this: http://galaxytab.samsungmobile.com/ > > What about them? Yes, the Android developers are pushing changes to > mainstream where it makes sense; they were doing this before the > wakelocks contrversy, and they're continuing to do it now. But in the > case of wakelocks, it may be that it's going to have to be a case of > "agree to disagree". > > All distributions, including Red Hat and SLES has in the shipped > product with patches that have never hit mainstream, and in some > cases, will never get merged with mainstream. A good example in the > past was the 4G/4G patch. Another one, which is still on-going, is > the Systemtap/utrace patches. Yet no one is killing megawatts worth > of electrons about how Red Hat and SLES are forking the kernel. They > push patches upstream where they can, and where they can't --- they do > what they need to do to satisify and delight their customers. > > (Heck, Sony is still using a 2.2 kernel for some of their products > with a huge bunch of patches and no one is toasting them for forking > the kernel....) the difference is that these other patches that you are talking about do not result in incompatible userspace (or at least, they don't except for very specialied apps). also, none of these other patches resulted in device drivers developed for a distro being incompatible with mainline. I think that the concerns from technical folks (as opposed to journalists/bloggers) would go down drastically if there was some acceptable way for the incompatible bits (like wakelocks) could be stubbed out so that the rest of the things could be moved easily. David Lang > Move along, there's nothing to see. Other that money for > journalists/bloggers who are gunning for advertising clicks by > whipping up controversy where IMHO, none deserves to exist. > > - Ted > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-06 23:52 ` david @ 2010-11-07 0:03 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-07 0:13 ` Alan Cox ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-07 0:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: david Cc: Anca Emanuel, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:52:26PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: > also, none of these other patches resulted in device drivers > developed for a distro being incompatible with mainline. What, people can't delete a couple of single lines of code before submitting the device driver upstream to mainline? Here's the world's tiniest violin playing, "my heart bleeds for you".... > I think that the concerns from technical folks (as opposed to > journalists/bloggers) would go down drastically if there was some > acceptable way for the incompatible bits (like wakelocks) could be > stubbed out so that the rest of the things could be moved easily. That was offerred as an interim/temporary solution, but no one seems willing to commit that those stubs exist permanently. At best, for another 6-9 months before they would be yanked out again, which would spur more fodder for the journalists/bloggers. Personally, I would think that temporary stubs would be really bad, raw deal for the Android team. It would force them through another set of hundreds of manhours worth of discussions (my folder with these discussions is currently 10 megabytes of e-mail; given that there seem to be irroncilable differences with respect to philosophy, and perhaps outright commercial incentives that the Android approach not go in by some of the participants, I have very little personal hope that more talks would go anywhere), and then after 6-9 months, it would be, "no forward progress", followed by the stubs getting yanked from the kernel, followed by more rounds of misinformed articles written by the tech tabloid community. Why would this be a good deal for anybody? - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 0:03 ` Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-07 0:13 ` Alan Cox 2010-11-07 0:20 ` Janakiram Sistla 2010-11-09 16:30 ` Mark Brown 2010-11-07 0:20 ` david 2010-11-10 13:54 ` Pavel Machek 2 siblings, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2010-11-07 0:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o Cc: david, Anca Emanuel, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 20:03:48 -0400 "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:52:26PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: > > also, none of these other patches resulted in device drivers > > developed for a distro being incompatible with mainline. > > What, people can't delete a couple of single lines of code before > submitting the device driver upstream to mainline? I've always wondered that but never seen a good answer from the Android people as to why they don't push the stuff without the wakelock bits and just keep "add wakelock" patches for those as they do for the core kernel stuff they hack about. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 0:13 ` Alan Cox @ 2010-11-07 0:20 ` Janakiram Sistla 2010-11-09 16:30 ` Mark Brown 1 sibling, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Janakiram Sistla @ 2010-11-07 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Ted Ts'o, david, Anca Emanuel, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 20:03:48 -0400 > "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:52:26PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: >> > also, none of these other patches resulted in device drivers >> > developed for a distro being incompatible with mainline. >> >> What, people can't delete a couple of single lines of code before >> submitting the device driver upstream to mainline? > > I've always wondered that but never seen a good answer from the Android > people as to why they don't push the stuff without the wakelock bits and > just keep "add wakelock" patches for those as they do for the core kernel > stuff they hack about. > I think the developers target for andriod kernel more than the mainline.The biggest point of the hour is whether the device works for Android Eclair, Android Froyo and not the see their patches in linux kernel unfortunately. Regards, Ram. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 0:13 ` Alan Cox 2010-11-07 0:20 ` Janakiram Sistla @ 2010-11-09 16:30 ` Mark Brown 1 sibling, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2010-11-09 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Ted Ts'o, david, Anca Emanuel, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 12:13:41AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > I've always wondered that but never seen a good answer from the Android > people as to why they don't push the stuff without the wakelock bits and > just keep "add wakelock" patches for those as they do for the core kernel > stuff they hack about. Much of this code has other serious issues (eg, code quality or being written for out of date kernel APIs) which prevents it being merged without other work. There are also some other areas where Android introduced random API variance, though none of them terribly important. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 0:03 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-07 0:13 ` Alan Cox @ 2010-11-07 0:20 ` david 2010-11-10 13:54 ` Pavel Machek 2 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: david @ 2010-11-07 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o Cc: Anca Emanuel, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:52:26PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: >> also, none of these other patches resulted in device drivers >> developed for a distro being incompatible with mainline. > > What, people can't delete a couple of single lines of code before > submitting the device driver upstream to mainline? Here's the world's > tiniest violin playing, "my heart bleeds for you".... the problem is that wouldn't be the version that would be maintained. >> I think that the concerns from technical folks (as opposed to >> journalists/bloggers) would go down drastically if there was some >> acceptable way for the incompatible bits (like wakelocks) could be >> stubbed out so that the rest of the things could be moved easily. > > That was offerred as an interim/temporary solution, but no one seems > willing to commit that those stubs exist permanently. At best, for > another 6-9 months before they would be yanked out again, which would > spur more fodder for the journalists/bloggers. > > Personally, I would think that temporary stubs would be really bad, > raw deal for the Android team. It would force them through another > set of hundreds of manhours worth of discussions (my folder with these > discussions is currently 10 megabytes of e-mail; given that there seem > to be irroncilable differences with respect to philosophy, and perhaps > outright commercial incentives that the Android approach not go in by > some of the participants, I have very little personal hope that more > talks would go anywhere), and then after 6-9 months, it would be, "no > forward progress", followed by the stubs getting yanked from the > kernel, followed by more rounds of misinformed articles written by the > tech tabloid community. > > Why would this be a good deal for anybody? Doing temporary stubs would be really bad for all the reasons you state. That's why I said that the stubs would have to be acceptable to everyone. they will be in there for a long time, and would probably end up being used in other drivers (ones that are in mainline now) so that they could used by android. unfortunantly this is not something that has been acceptable upstream. I understand the reluctance for this (and the disaster we would have if things like this happened frequently), I just wonder if being able to get the drivers for phones in mainline may be worth the maintinance overhead of allowing these stubs permanently in mainline David Lang ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 0:03 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-07 0:13 ` Alan Cox 2010-11-07 0:20 ` david @ 2010-11-10 13:54 ` Pavel Machek 2010-11-10 20:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2010-11-10 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o, david, Anca Emanuel, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat 2010-11-06 20:03:48, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:52:26PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: > > also, none of these other patches resulted in device drivers > > developed for a distro being incompatible with mainline. > > What, people can't delete a couple of single lines of code before > submitting the device driver upstream to mainline? Here's the world's > tiniest violin playing, "my heart bleeds for you".... Deleting couple single liners is not a problem. Cleaning up 100KLoC patch for mainline *is* a problem. I know, I tried to do that work. Even getting it to staging quality was hard, and it was recently dropped due to security holes. Unfortunately google uses wakelocks as an excuse for not cleaning up stuff... "because readding those few lines would be too hard". Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-10 13:54 ` Pavel Machek @ 2010-11-10 20:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2011-01-11 14:33 ` Pavel Machek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2010-11-10 20:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek Cc: Ted Ts'o, david, Anca Emanuel, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wednesday, November 10, 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sat 2010-11-06 20:03:48, Ted Ts'o wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:52:26PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: > > > also, none of these other patches resulted in device drivers > > > developed for a distro being incompatible with mainline. > > > > What, people can't delete a couple of single lines of code before > > submitting the device driver upstream to mainline? Here's the world's > > tiniest violin playing, "my heart bleeds for you".... > > Deleting couple single liners is not a problem. Cleaning up 100KLoC > patch for mainline *is* a problem. > > I know, I tried to do that work. Even getting it to staging quality > was hard, and it was recently dropped due to security holes. > > Unfortunately google uses wakelocks as an excuse for not cleaning up > stuff... "because readding those few lines would be too hard". Actually, this isn't a good excuse any more as of 2.6.37-rc1. You can basically replace wakelocks with wakeup sources and go ahead. Thanks, Rafael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-10 20:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2011-01-11 14:33 ` Pavel Machek 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2011-01-11 14:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rafael J. Wysocki Cc: Ted Ts'o, david, Anca Emanuel, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List, swetland Hi! > > > What, people can't delete a couple of single lines of code before > > > submitting the device driver upstream to mainline? Here's the world's > > > tiniest violin playing, "my heart bleeds for you".... > > > > Deleting couple single liners is not a problem. Cleaning up 100KLoC > > patch for mainline *is* a problem. > > > > I know, I tried to do that work. Even getting it to staging quality > > was hard, and it was recently dropped due to security holes. > > > > Unfortunately google uses wakelocks as an excuse for not cleaning up > > stuff... "because readding those few lines would be too hard". > > Actually, this isn't a good excuse any more as of 2.6.37-rc1. You can > basically replace wakelocks with wakeup sources and go ahead. It would be nice if someone from android comment could comment on this. 2.6.37 is out, and it should have all the support to solve problems also solved by wakelocks... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-06 19:40 ` Anca Emanuel 2010-11-06 23:40 ` Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-06 23:42 ` Janakiram Sistla 1 sibling, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Janakiram Sistla @ 2010-11-06 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anca Emanuel Cc: Ted Ts'o, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Anca Emanuel <anca.emanuel@gmail.com> wrote: > I think you need to see this: https://review.source.android.com/#change,18761\ I have point here all the vendors working on Android are now targeting their so called open source maintance only targeted towards kernel maintained on Googles code base git.android.kernel.org. For example for the same above kernel/tegra ,compare the board files(board-harmony.c) from same vendor in android.kernel.org http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=history;f=arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-harmony.c;h=9e305de56be9ac28ab023dbfc4f748c5f260bec1;hb=f6f94e2ab1b33f0082ac22d71f66385a60d8157f and in mainline kernel.org for the same vendor board file I see http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=kernel/tegra.git;a=history;f=arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-harmony.c;h=ee01dd0ae7cd16ae6d207a540d875d3516d53797;hb=linux-tegra-2.6.36 This i dont really understand why.This is the same in case of other key chipset vendors. > And this: http://galaxytab.samsungmobile.com/ The above link yes a samsung galaxy tab is an android product so ?? Thanks and regards, Ram > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-06 19:22 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-06 19:40 ` Anca Emanuel @ 2010-11-06 23:09 ` Greg KH 2010-11-07 0:24 ` Randy Dunlap 1 sibling, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-06 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 03:22:59PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > Given that the Android kernel developers have already spent upwards of > ten times the amount of engineering hours it would take forward port > their kernel patches to each upstream kernel version for the next > several years, finding a path that meets their requirements as well as > those of the upstream kernel maintainers may not be a trivial thing. > > Also keep in mind that someone no less than Linus Torvalds has said > that sometimes forks are good, and that the _freedom_ to fork is > critical. But if anyone feels that figuring out some way to make the > android kernel patches (a) upstreamable, and (b) compatible with > android's userspace is their itch to scratch, the other part of the > open source ethos is that they are certainly free to try. As per the Rusty Russell rule of lkml etiquette, we are all allowed to participate, or start, one massive, no-holds-barred, ugly as mud flame war per year. Remembering that the year was going to be over soon and I didn't think I had met my quota for this yet, I started to respond to this email. But after composing it, I realized that it was not going to change anyone's feelings about the manner, nor cause anything constructive to ever occur, besides giving zillions of electrons something to do lighting up /. comment threads. So I've deleted it, and will just respond with this simple line: I respectively disagree with your opinion, so we will have to just agree to disagree at the moment. The carrots need to be pulled from the garden now, before the next rain sets in up here in the Pacific northwest, turning them into orange and purple mush, so I'll go do that, getting my hands dirty with real dirt, instead of wearing out my fingertips in creating virtual mud here. cordially, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-06 23:09 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-07 0:24 ` Randy Dunlap 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Randy Dunlap @ 2010-11-07 0:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH Cc: Ted Ts'o, Elvis Dowson, Janakiram Sistla, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 16:09:44 -0700 Greg KH wrote: > As per the Rusty Russell rule of lkml etiquette, we are all allowed to > participate, or start, one massive, no-holds-barred, ugly as mud flame > war per year. Remembering that the year was going to be over soon and I > didn't think I had met my quota for this yet, I started to respond to > this email. > > But after composing it, I realized that it was not going to change > anyone's feelings about the manner, nor cause anything constructive to > ever occur, besides giving zillions of electrons something to do > lighting up /. comment threads. So I've deleted it, and will just ack > respond with this simple line: > > I respectively disagree with your opinion, so we will have to just > agree to disagree at the moment. > > The carrots need to be pulled from the garden now, before the next rain > sets in up here in the Pacific northwest, turning them into orange and > purple mush, so I'll go do that, getting my hands dirty with real dirt, > instead of wearing out my fingertips in creating virtual mud here. heh, you had me for a moment there. I thought that you were referring to harvesting virtual carrots from the android stuff. --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-06 18:12 ` Greg KH 2010-11-06 19:22 ` Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-07 8:38 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-07 11:44 ` Anca Emanuel 1 sibling, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-07 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List HI Greg, On Nov 6, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Greg KH wrote: > Are you willing to maintain the android kernel code in the mainline > kernel tree? If so, I will be glad to add it back in, but as no one was > willing to do the work, it was removed. It's as simple as that. I'm willing to do this. I'll start off initially with support for TI OMAP 35xx and TI OMAP 4440, build and test initially on the Gumstix Overo, BeagleBoard and PandaBoard. I'll start with v2.6.37-rc1 and android-froyo-2.2, and try to do the required changes to get it accepted into mainline by v2.6.39. Elvis Dowson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 8:38 ` Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-07 11:44 ` Anca Emanuel 2010-11-07 15:57 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Anca Emanuel @ 2010-11-07 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Elvis Dowson; +Cc: Greg KH, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Elvis Dowson <elvis.dowson@mac.com> wrote: > HI Greg, > > On Nov 6, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Greg KH wrote: > >> Are you willing to maintain the android kernel code in the mainline >> kernel tree? If so, I will be glad to add it back in, but as no one was >> willing to do the work, it was removed. It's as simple as that. > > I'm willing to do this. I'll start off initially with support for TI OMAP 35xx > and TI OMAP 4440, build and test initially on the Gumstix Overo, > BeagleBoard and PandaBoard. > > I'll start with v2.6.37-rc1 and android-froyo-2.2, and try to do the required > changes to get it accepted into mainline by v2.6.39. > > Elvis Dowson Read this: https://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/1105?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=Linaro+Cycle+2+Requirements+18+September+2010.pdf ( http://is.gd/gNP7y ) [quote] Android Strategy Sponsor: Yves V. (Freescale) Leads: Loïc, Scott B. WGs: Kernel Consolidation, Toolchain ... A2.2 Support upstreaming of Android patches [/quote] Linaro is going in the same direction. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 11:44 ` Anca Emanuel @ 2010-11-07 15:57 ` Greg KH 2010-11-07 20:06 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-07 21:44 ` Arnaud Lacombe 0 siblings, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-07 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anca Emanuel; +Cc: Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 01:44:45PM +0200, Anca Emanuel wrote: > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Elvis Dowson <elvis.dowson@mac.com> wrote: > > HI Greg, > > > > On Nov 6, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > >> Are you willing to maintain the android kernel code in the mainline > >> kernel tree? ?If so, I will be glad to add it back in, but as no one was > >> willing to do the work, it was removed. ?It's as simple as that. > > > > I'm willing to do this. I'll start off initially with support for TI OMAP 35xx > > and TI OMAP 4440, build and test initially on the Gumstix Overo, > > BeagleBoard and PandaBoard. > > > > I'll start with v2.6.37-rc1 and android-froyo-2.2, and try to do the required > > changes to get it accepted into mainline by v2.6.39. > > > > Elvis Dowson > > Read this: https://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/1105?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=Linaro+Cycle+2+Requirements+18+September+2010.pdf > ( http://is.gd/gNP7y ) > > [quote] > Android Strategy > Sponsor: Yves V. (Freescale) > Leads: Lo?c, Scott B. > WGs: Kernel Consolidation, Toolchain > ... > > A2.2 Support upstreaming of Android patches > [/quote] > > Linaro is going in the same direction. That does not mean they will actually ever get to that work, or achieve it... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 15:57 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-07 20:06 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-07 21:31 ` Greg KH 2010-11-09 18:10 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-07 21:44 ` Arnaud Lacombe 1 sibling, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-07 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi Greg, I just saw the presentation you made on the subject for the 2010 CELF Embedded Linux Conference https://github.com/gregkh/android-presentation/raw/master/android-kernel.pdf Elvis Dowson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 20:06 ` Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-07 21:31 ` Greg KH 2010-11-07 21:46 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-09 18:10 ` Elvis Dowson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-07 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Elvis Dowson; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:06:03AM +0400, Elvis Dowson wrote: > Hi Greg, > I just saw the presentation you made on the subject for the 2010 CELF Embedded Linux Conference > > https://github.com/gregkh/android-presentation/raw/master/android-kernel.pdf Please see the video of the talk to get the context for the slides. thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 21:31 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-07 21:46 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-07 21:47 ` Arnaud Lacombe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Arnaud Lacombe @ 2010-11-07 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:06:03AM +0400, Elvis Dowson wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> I just saw the presentation you made on the subject for the 2010 CELF Embedded Linux Conference >> >> https://github.com/gregkh/android-presentation/raw/master/android-kernel.pdf > > Please see the video of the talk to get the context for the slides. > Say that I somehow hate to complain on large diffusion mailing list :) - Arnaud ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 21:46 ` Arnaud Lacombe @ 2010-11-07 21:47 ` Arnaud Lacombe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Arnaud Lacombe @ 2010-11-07 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:06:03AM +0400, Elvis Dowson wrote: >>> Hi Greg, >>> I just saw the presentation you made on the subject for the 2010 CELF Embedded Linux Conference >>> >>> https://github.com/gregkh/android-presentation/raw/master/android-kernel.pdf >> >> Please see the video of the talk to get the context for the slides. >> > Say that I somehow hate to complain on large diffusion mailing list :) > Looks I replied to the wrong mail, sorry for that :/ - Arnaud ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 20:06 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-07 21:31 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-09 18:10 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-09 18:24 ` Greg KH 1 sibling, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-09 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, Is there an efficient way to locally store all LKML mailing list archives, so that I can efficiently filter on only the android patch review comments? There must be a hundred thousand emails exchanges that I need to sift through and to locate the discussion threads, and was wondering if there was a more efficient way to go about doing this analysis. I was thinking of looking at the review comments, incorporating some of the changes, get that reviewed after testing those changes with modified android low-level libraries (I'm guessing mostly android/bionic, but need to check this). Best regards, Elvis Dowson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-09 18:10 ` Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-09 18:24 ` Greg KH 2010-11-09 18:37 ` Elvis Dowson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-09 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Elvis Dowson; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:10:56PM +0400, Elvis Dowson wrote: > Hi, > Is there an efficient way to locally store all LKML mailing list > archives, so that I can efficiently filter on only the android patch > review comments? Yes, there are loads of tools that do this. mairix is one that I like to use to search email archives. > I was thinking of looking at the review comments, incorporating some > of the changes, get that reviewed after testing those changes with > modified android low-level libraries (I'm guessing mostly > android/bionic, but need to check this). If you have the rights to make the changes to the andoid userspace code, great. Otherwise you are not going to get very far. good luck, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-09 18:24 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-09 18:37 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-09 18:42 ` david 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-09 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi Greg, On Nov 9, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Greg KH wrote: > If you have the rights to make the changes to the andoid userspace code, > great. Otherwise you are not going to get very far. Isn't the whole Android stack licensed under Apache 2.0? Doesn't everyone have full access to the android userspace code? In your slides, you made several references to only google developers being able to modify the low-level libraries, which I admit I still don't understand. If we have full access to the source under an Apache 2.0 license, what would prevent us from making the required modifications and re-releasing the modified sources under the same Apache 2.0 license? Best regards, Elvis Dowson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-09 18:37 ` Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-09 18:42 ` david 2010-11-09 18:52 ` Elvis Dowson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: david @ 2010-11-09 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Elvis Dowson; +Cc: Greg KH, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Elvis Dowson wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Nov 9, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Greg KH wrote: > >> If you have the rights to make the changes to the andoid userspace code, >> great. Otherwise you are not going to get very far. > > Isn't the whole Android stack licensed under Apache 2.0? Doesn't everyone > have full access to the android userspace code? > > In your slides, you made several references to only google developers being > able to modify the low-level libraries, which I admit I still don't understand. > > If we have full access to the source under an Apache 2.0 license, what would > prevent us from making the required modifications and re-releasing the > modified sources under the same Apache 2.0 license? you can modify them, but unless those modifications get used, what good are they? David Lang ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-09 18:42 ` david @ 2010-11-09 18:52 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-09 20:55 ` Ted Ts'o 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-09 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Nov 9, 2010, at 10:42 PM, david@lang.hm wrote: > you can modify them, but unless those modifications get used, what good are they? It would at least help us get android into mainline, and allow hand-set manufacturers to baseline from a newer kernel version, and prevent the fork. Elvis Dowson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-09 18:52 ` Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-09 20:55 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-09 22:32 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-09 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Elvis Dowson; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:52:13PM +0400, Elvis Dowson wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2010, at 10:42 PM, david@lang.hm wrote: > > > you can modify them, but unless those modifications get used, what good are they? > > It would at least help us get android into mainline, and allow > hand-set manufacturers to baseline from a newer kernel version, and > prevent the fork. Ah, but if you make changes to the android userspace that aren't accepted upstream by the core android development team, you'll be forking the android userspace. And given that they are continuing to add new features to the android userspace, what makes you so sure that the handset manufacturers will follow *your* tree? Note also that the handset manufacturers also don't want to reveal choices they may have made vis-a-vis to-be-released hardware until the product is ready to ship. Hence they make their changes in private trees that only get shared with partners (including the upstream Android userspace developers at Google as well as their chip suppliers) when an NDA is signed. So it's not clear they will be that interested in using a baseline from a newer kernel version. Especially if the changes you propose making to your forked version of the Android userspace don't contain the latest and greatest user-visible features.... - Ted P.S. These are my opinions only; I don't speak for my employer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-09 20:55 ` Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-09 22:32 ` Alan Cox 2010-11-10 0:35 ` Ted Ts'o 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2010-11-09 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o; +Cc: Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List > Ah, but if you make changes to the android userspace that aren't > accepted upstream by the core android development team, you'll be > forking the android userspace. And given that they are continuing to Oh so forking the kernel is fine but forking userspace is silly. Quaint > So it's not clear they will be that interested in using a baseline > from a newer kernel version. Especially if the changes you propose > making to your forked version of the Android userspace don't contain > the latest and greatest user-visible features.... Who cares ? I don't remember IBM and Dell being terribly interested in Linux when it started but that wasn't a reason not to do it ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-09 22:32 ` Alan Cox @ 2010-11-10 0:35 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-10 9:53 ` Florian Mickler 2010-11-10 20:55 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-10 0:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:32:25PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > Ah, but if you make changes to the android userspace that aren't > > accepted upstream by the core android development team, you'll be > > forking the android userspace. And given that they are continuing to > > Oh so forking the kernel is fine but forking userspace is silly. Quaint I didn't say that it was silly; that was your words. What I said is that it's not clear any handset manufacturers would pay attention to the forked android userspace (which was his assumption/hope). Whether or not it is "silly" depends on what goals are for the original poster. If he is trying to effect change in terms of how the handset manufactures do their driver development, then it might not meet his goals. If he wants to do it for the technical challenge, then of course he should be encouraged to do whatever give it a go.... I suspect that sometimes we of the LKML community are in danger of believing our own propaganda, and assume that getting code into mainline, and developing in mainline is always better than any alternative, and is higher priority than any other consideration. If a product had 33% less battery lifetime, but was developed in mainline, would you buy that over a standard product? OK, maybe a LKML denizen might. But would most customers? OTOH, if the original poster thinks that he can develop changes to the Android userspace that allow the use of an upstream kernel, and has just as good battery lifetime, and with a system which is just as debuggable and easy to maintain as the current android userspace, then by all means, I would love for him to try to prove that he can. And I will certainly be happy to introduce him to the Android developers who measure power usage in mobile devices using microwatt meters to see if he really can do as good of a job using a stock kernel. So Elvis, if you think you can, please consider this a challenge! :-) Or if he just wants to get the drivers into mainline so that other non-Android devices can use those particular chipsets, that's good too. I just hope that he can do appropriate testing so that he can be a good maintainer for the drivers, which means testing them. Pushing code that may or may not work isn't necessarily an improvement! - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-10 0:35 ` Ted Ts'o @ 2010-11-10 9:53 ` Florian Mickler 2010-11-10 20:55 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Florian Mickler @ 2010-11-10 9:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o; +Cc: Alan Cox, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:35:24 -0500 Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:32:25PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Ah, but if you make changes to the android userspace that aren't > > > accepted upstream by the core android development team, you'll be > > > forking the android userspace. And given that they are continuing to > > > > Oh so forking the kernel is fine but forking userspace is silly. Quaint > OTOH, if the original poster thinks that he can develop changes to the > Android userspace that allow the use of an upstream kernel, and has > just as good battery lifetime, and with a system which is just as > debuggable and easy to maintain as the current android userspace, then > by all means, I would love for him to try to prove that he can. And I > will certainly be happy to introduce him to the Android developers who > measure power usage in mobile devices using microwatt meters to see if > he really can do as good of a job using a stock kernel. > > So Elvis, if you think you can, please consider this a challenge! :-) > > Or if he just wants to get the drivers into mainline so that other > non-Android devices can use those particular chipsets, that's good > too. I just hope that he can do appropriate testing so that he can be > a good maintainer for the drivers, which means testing them. Pushing > code that may or may not work isn't necessarily an improvement! > > - Ted I don't think _maintaining_ a fork is currently necessary or worthwile. But what could be useful as a proove of concept, would be to try to express the original wake-lock api (the one that is currently in use on android) in terms of the mechanisms currently in mainline. That way, Rafael would probably get useful feedback on pm_wakeup_event() (and friends) implementation. Regards, Flo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-10 0:35 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-10 9:53 ` Florian Mickler @ 2010-11-10 20:55 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2010-11-10 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o; +Cc: Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List > alternative, and is higher priority than any other consideration. If > a product had 33% less battery lifetime, but was developed in > mainline, would you buy that over a standard product? OK, maybe a That's if you believe the Google thing that it can't be done any other way. Which other vendors don't seem to be agree with. > OTOH, if the original poster thinks that he can develop changes to the > Android userspace that allow the use of an upstream kernel, and has > just as good battery lifetime, and with a system which is just as > debuggable and easy to maintain as the current android userspace, then > by all means, I would love for him to try to prove that he can. And I > will certainly be happy to introduce him to the Android developers who > measure power usage in mobile devices using microwatt meters to see if > he really can do as good of a job using a stock kernel. Well actually there is a much better simple reason. One of the things you get by using a standard kernel is the ability to dump a true Android environment onto another device that's running something else as well. I don't quite understand why people play some of the strange games they do but being able to dump them on arbitary Linux platforms is no doubt useful. Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 15:57 ` Greg KH 2010-11-07 20:06 ` Elvis Dowson @ 2010-11-07 21:44 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-07 21:59 ` Greg KH ` (3 more replies) 1 sibling, 4 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Arnaud Lacombe @ 2010-11-07 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > [...] > Just a small comment to say that Android is not the only one (but certainly the most visible, and thus easiest to bash on) not making effort to get their stuff in mainline. OpenWRT people are also maintaining their fork of the kernel, without even using git, and not contributing much to mainline (I'm certainly mistaken on that last comment). I'm still stuck to use their 2.6.32 to use my AR71xx-based (MIPS) boards, just this part is +15kloc. - Arnaud ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 21:44 ` Arnaud Lacombe @ 2010-11-07 21:59 ` Greg KH 2010-11-07 23:09 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-11 0:33 ` Roland Dreier 2010-11-09 13:27 ` Florian Fainelli ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-07 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnaud Lacombe; +Cc: Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 04:44:48PM -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > Just a small comment to say that Android is not the only one (but > certainly the most visible, and thus easiest to bash on) not making > effort to get their stuff in mainline. OpenWRT people are also > maintaining their fork of the kernel, without even using git, and not > contributing much to mainline (I'm certainly mistaken on that last > comment). Isn't the openwrt stuff just drivers and some arch specific code? Nothing that is core infrastructure, and nothing preventing them from submitting the drivers and arch code if they want to, right? If so, why don't you submit it? Why don't they? curious, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 21:59 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-07 23:09 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-08 1:42 ` Greg KH 2010-11-09 13:27 ` Florian Fainelli 2010-11-11 0:33 ` Roland Dreier 1 sibling, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Arnaud Lacombe @ 2010-11-07 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 04:44:48PM -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: >> > [...] >> > >> Just a small comment to say that Android is not the only one (but >> certainly the most visible, and thus easiest to bash on) not making >> effort to get their stuff in mainline. OpenWRT people are also >> maintaining their fork of the kernel, without even using git, and not >> contributing much to mainline (I'm certainly mistaken on that last >> comment). > > Isn't the openwrt stuff just drivers and some arch specific code? > Nothing that is core infrastructure, and nothing preventing them from > submitting the drivers and arch code if they want to, right? > >From what I can see, yes. > If so, why don't you submit it? > because I have no knowledge on the code, nor have any documentation on the underlying hardware. That said, it's in my TODO, but stuff keeps getting in before this entry. >Why don't they? > I just checked with some dev on IRC, there might be a time issue. The patches have been synced with 2.6.36 recently (a month ago). So there're still hope :) - Arnaud ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 23:09 ` Arnaud Lacombe @ 2010-11-08 1:42 ` Greg KH 2010-11-08 2:22 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-09 13:27 ` Florian Fainelli 1 sibling, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-08 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnaud Lacombe; +Cc: Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 06:09:33PM -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > >Why don't they? > > > I just checked with some dev on IRC, there might be a time issue. The > patches have been synced with 2.6.36 recently (a month ago). So > there're still hope :) Have a pointer to the patch? thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-08 1:42 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-08 2:22 ` Arnaud Lacombe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Arnaud Lacombe @ 2010-11-08 2:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 06:09:33PM -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> >Why don't they? >> > >> I just checked with some dev on IRC, there might be a time issue. The >> patches have been synced with 2.6.36 recently (a month ago). So >> there're still hope :) > > Have a pointer to the patch? > It is split between new files, under target/linux/ar71xx of their tree, and patches of existing kernel files. You can browse online the git export of their SVN: http://nbd.name/gitweb.cgi?p=openwrt.git;a=tree;f=target/linux/ar71xx;hb=b45b193b99d0111a70845c02bdeb3ece58fb15a1 or clone the git export (~90M): git://nbd.name/openwrt.git I guess with some git-fuu, everything can be extracted, so that the history of the files themselves would be kept, thought, commit message may need a bit of tweaking. Then patch linking the core to the rest of the kernel can be applied separately. I'll try to have a look tonight. - Arnaud > thanks, > > greg k-h > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 23:09 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-08 1:42 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-09 13:27 ` Florian Fainelli 1 sibling, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Florian Fainelli @ 2010-11-09 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnaud Lacombe Cc: Greg KH, Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List, openwrt-devel On Monday 08 November 2010 00:09:33 Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 04:44:48PM -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > >> > [...] > >> > >> Just a small comment to say that Android is not the only one (but > >> certainly the most visible, and thus easiest to bash on) not making > >> effort to get their stuff in mainline. OpenWRT people are also > >> maintaining their fork of the kernel, without even using git, and not > >> contributing much to mainline (I'm certainly mistaken on that last > >> comment). > > > > Isn't the openwrt stuff just drivers and some arch specific code? > > Nothing that is core infrastructure, and nothing preventing them from > > submitting the drivers and arch code if they want to, right? > > From what I can see, yes. > > > If so, why don't you submit it? > > because I have no knowledge on the code, nor have any documentation on > the underlying hardware. That said, it's in my TODO, but stuff keeps > getting in before this entry. > > >Why don't they? > > I just checked with some dev on IRC, there might be a time issue. The > patches have been synced with 2.6.36 recently (a month ago). So > there're still hope :) Of course there is, but like I told you on IRC, the best way to gather someone's attention is to talk to him. So far, you did not put openwrt-devel in copy of this thread, you should have, we are not ignoring anyone's request if made available. -- Florian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 21:59 ` Greg KH 2010-11-07 23:09 ` Arnaud Lacombe @ 2010-11-11 0:33 ` Roland Dreier 2010-11-11 0:40 ` Thomas Gleixner ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Roland Dreier @ 2010-11-11 0:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH Cc: Arnaud Lacombe, Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List > Isn't the openwrt stuff just drivers and some arch specific code? > Nothing that is core infrastructure, and nothing preventing them from > submitting the drivers and arch code if they want to, right? Actually openwrt has some core infrastructure for managing (ethernet) switches as extra-fancy multiport PHYs. That means that all the drivers in openwrt for the typical 5-8 port switches in home routers don't really apply to mainline. - R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-11 0:33 ` Roland Dreier @ 2010-11-11 0:40 ` Thomas Gleixner 2010-11-12 3:15 ` Roland Dreier 2010-11-11 0:47 ` Greg KH 2010-11-11 11:18 ` Florian Fainelli 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2010-11-11 0:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roland Dreier Cc: Greg KH, Arnaud Lacombe, Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Roland Dreier wrote: > > Isn't the openwrt stuff just drivers and some arch specific code? > > Nothing that is core infrastructure, and nothing preventing them from > > submitting the drivers and arch code if they want to, right? > > Actually openwrt has some core infrastructure for managing (ethernet) > switches as extra-fancy multiport PHYs. That means that all the drivers > in openwrt for the typical 5-8 port switches in home routers don't > really apply to mainline. Why not? Those switches _ARE_ extra-fancy multiport PHYs. And AFAICT we have no support for this stuff in mainline at all. So where is the problem ? Thanks, tglx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-11 0:40 ` Thomas Gleixner @ 2010-11-12 3:15 ` Roland Dreier 2010-11-12 10:26 ` Florian Fainelli 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Roland Dreier @ 2010-11-12 3:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Greg KH, Arnaud Lacombe, Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List > > > Isn't the openwrt stuff just drivers and some arch specific code? > > > Nothing that is core infrastructure, and nothing preventing them from > > > submitting the drivers and arch code if they want to, right? > > > > Actually openwrt has some core infrastructure for managing (ethernet) > > switches as extra-fancy multiport PHYs. That means that all the drivers > > in openwrt for the typical 5-8 port switches in home routers don't > > really apply to mainline. > > Why not? Those switches _ARE_ extra-fancy multiport PHYs. And AFAICT > we have no support for this stuff in mainline at all. > > So where is the problem ? There's no real problem. I was just pointing out that the openwrt switch stuff actually does have some core infrastructure that mainline is missing. ie openwrt is not just drivers and arch code. But yes I agree mainline should really do a better job of supporting ethernet switches, and clearly openwrt has the most real-world experience with implementing that. - R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-12 3:15 ` Roland Dreier @ 2010-11-12 10:26 ` Florian Fainelli 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Florian Fainelli @ 2010-11-12 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roland Dreier Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Greg KH, Arnaud Lacombe, Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Friday 12 November 2010 04:15:56 Roland Dreier wrote: > > > > Isn't the openwrt stuff just drivers and some arch specific code? > > > > Nothing that is core infrastructure, and nothing preventing them > > > > from submitting the drivers and arch code if they want to, right? > > > > > > Actually openwrt has some core infrastructure for managing (ethernet) > > > switches as extra-fancy multiport PHYs. That means that all the > > > drivers in openwrt for the typical 5-8 port switches in home routers > > > don't really apply to mainline. > > > > Why not? Those switches _ARE_ extra-fancy multiport PHYs. And AFAICT > > we have no support for this stuff in mainline at all. > > > > So where is the problem ? > > There's no real problem. I was just pointing out that the openwrt > switch stuff actually does have some core infrastructure that mainline > is missing. ie openwrt is not just drivers and arch code. > > But yes I agree mainline should really do a better job of supporting > ethernet switches, and clearly openwrt has the most real-world > experience with implementing that. We are in the process of cleaning up that code and hope to submit for review within the next few weeks. -- Florian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-11 0:33 ` Roland Dreier 2010-11-11 0:40 ` Thomas Gleixner @ 2010-11-11 0:47 ` Greg KH 2010-11-11 11:21 ` Florian Fainelli 2010-11-11 11:18 ` Florian Fainelli 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-11 0:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roland Dreier Cc: Arnaud Lacombe, Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 04:33:38PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: > > Isn't the openwrt stuff just drivers and some arch specific code? > > Nothing that is core infrastructure, and nothing preventing them from > > submitting the drivers and arch code if they want to, right? > > Actually openwrt has some core infrastructure for managing (ethernet) > switches as extra-fancy multiport PHYs. That means that all the drivers > in openwrt for the typical 5-8 port switches in home routers don't > really apply to mainline. Why can't we merge that core infrastructure as well? Has it been rejected for any specific reasons? thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-11 0:47 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-11 11:21 ` Florian Fainelli 2010-11-12 3:17 ` Roland Dreier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Florian Fainelli @ 2010-11-11 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH Cc: Roland Dreier, Arnaud Lacombe, Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List Le Thursday 11 November 2010 01:47:30, Greg KH a écrit : > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 04:33:38PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > Isn't the openwrt stuff just drivers and some arch specific code? > > > Nothing that is core infrastructure, and nothing preventing them from > > > submitting the drivers and arch code if they want to, right? > > > > Actually openwrt has some core infrastructure for managing (ethernet) > > switches as extra-fancy multiport PHYs. That means that all the drivers > > in openwrt for the typical 5-8 port switches in home routers don't > > really apply to mainline. > > Why can't we merge that core infrastructure as well? Has it been > rejected for any specific reasons? It has been not been submitted for review yet, I suppose we could do that within the next couple days. -- Florian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-11 11:21 ` Florian Fainelli @ 2010-11-12 3:17 ` Roland Dreier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Roland Dreier @ 2010-11-12 3:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Florian Fainelli Cc: Greg KH, Arnaud Lacombe, Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List > Why can't we merge that core infrastructure as well? Has it been > rejected for any specific reasons? There's nothing obviously wrong with it, and I didn't mean to suggest that there would be a problem merging it. I was just pointing out that openwrt has done a bit more than just drivers and arch code. - R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-11 0:33 ` Roland Dreier 2010-11-11 0:40 ` Thomas Gleixner 2010-11-11 0:47 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-11 11:18 ` Florian Fainelli 2 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Florian Fainelli @ 2010-11-11 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roland Dreier Cc: Greg KH, Arnaud Lacombe, Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hello Roland, Le Thursday 11 November 2010 01:33:38, Roland Dreier a écrit : > > Isn't the openwrt stuff just drivers and some arch specific code? > > Nothing that is core infrastructure, and nothing preventing them from > > submitting the drivers and arch code if they want to, right? > > Actually openwrt has some core infrastructure for managing (ethernet) > switches as extra-fancy multiport PHYs. That means that all the drivers > in openwrt for the typical 5-8 port switches in home routers don't > really apply to mainline. This is called "swconfig" in OpenWrt and it works in two parts: - a swconfig driver, which interfaces the getting and setting of switches attributes using netlink, therefore there is an user-space counter-part - the switch drivers are implemented as phylib drivers with a phylib fixup callback to allow proper detection of these (you cannot alwasy simply read the standard PHY ID), the config_init callback will set correct defaults for the switch to be usable even without swconfig The rationale behind swconfig comes from the fact that the Marvell DSA switch infrastructure is both too complex and too-specific to driver relatively simpler switches. One could therefore just use the "phylib switch driver" without swconfig and have it working. -- Florian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 21:44 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-07 21:59 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-09 13:27 ` Florian Fainelli 2010-11-09 13:51 ` [OpenWrt-Devel] " Wolfgang Spraul 2010-11-13 3:06 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-15 17:34 ` Stefan Monnier 3 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Florian Fainelli @ 2010-11-09 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnaud Lacombe Cc: Greg KH, Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List, openwrt-devel Arnaud, On Sunday 07 November 2010 22:44:48 Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > [...] > > Just a small comment to say that Android is not the only one (but > certainly the most visible, and thus easiest to bash on) not making > effort to get their stuff in mainline. OpenWRT people are also > maintaining their fork of the kernel, without even using git, and not > contributing much to mainline (I'm certainly mistaken on that last > comment). You are a bit rude and mistaking at the same time. We did contribute back TI AR7, Mikrotik RB532, RDC R-321x, IXP4xx to name a few and a lot of various patches on different related projects. So I do agree the situation is not the best because we still maintain too many patches in the OpenWrt repository, especially since the added value of OpenWrt do not only resides in the kernel patches for a specific target. Please understand that we are just human beings and right now, ar71xx is becoming more and more present on the wireless routers market, that's why developpers (Imre and Gabor) are being kept busy making this target work fine on all of the routers out there (and it's not just about 1 or 2 models, we are talking about nearly 50, all of these with different hardware integration, thus challenges). The fact that we are using subversion is purely gratuitous, remember this is just a tool after all. The flat structure that we have, and the per-kernel version patches still makes it easy for people to pick whatever they need from our tree. Certainly this is not ideal, but no major stopper. > > I'm still stuck to use their 2.6.32 to use my AR71xx-based (MIPS) > boards, just this part is +15kloc. 2.6.36 support for ar71xx is out there since Oct 8th. -- Florian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-09 13:27 ` Florian Fainelli @ 2010-11-09 13:51 ` Wolfgang Spraul 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Wolfgang Spraul @ 2010-11-09 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: OpenWrt Development List Cc: Arnaud Lacombe, Greg KH, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Anca Emanuel Florian and Greg, > > Just a small comment to say that Android is not the only one (but > > certainly the most visible, and thus easiest to bash on) not making > > effort to get their stuff in mainline. OpenWRT people are also > > maintaining their fork of the kernel, without even using git, and not > > contributing much to mainline (I'm certainly mistaken on that last > > comment). > > You are a bit rude and mistaking at the same time. We did contribute back TI > AR7, Mikrotik RB532, RDC R-321x, IXP4xx to name a few and a lot of various > patches on different related projects. I'm speaking as a bystander here, but Lars-Peter Clausen took an enormous effort to get an entire new SoC, Ingenic's XBurst 4740, into mainline Linux, using the OpenWrt patch system as his development/staging area. A lot of that work was merged mainline in 2.6.36, some more is coming. I think the mainline quality standards are high (nothing wrong with that), so it's not easy to get stuff up to that level. And there is not exactly much of a pull force either, if I may say so. I have worked on numerous projects, platforms and build systems over the years. The OpenWrt people and tools are some of the most upstream oriented and best ways to get upstream I have seen. The next big thing I will try to lend a helping hand to will be the kernel.org inclusion of the Milkymist SoC. A fairly clean and constantly re-based kernel is here https://github.com/tmatsuya/linux-2.6 Linux 2.6.36+ is already booting, now it 'only' needs to go mainline ;-) http://lists.milkymist.org/pipermail/devel-milkymist.org/2010-October/000979.html Anybody mainline care to pull directly? That would be awesome. Otherwise my next best bet would be to go to OpenWrt first, hack it into SVN patches, then go from there. At least OpenWrt cares a lot to produce buildable and bootable images at any time, that's an excellent way to go for bigger and better things. >From the perspective of someone looking from mainline, I can understand the frustration over not seeing a git repo that one can pull from at any time. But from the outside it looks a bit different. Patches are sometimes forced to live outside mainline for a long long time, years. And in those years the way OpenWrt is dealing with patches is still a very effective system to avoid bitrot. my 2c, Wolfgang ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 21:44 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-07 21:59 ` Greg KH 2010-11-09 13:27 ` Florian Fainelli @ 2010-11-13 3:06 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-15 17:34 ` Stefan Monnier 3 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Arnaud Lacombe @ 2010-11-13 3:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Anca Emanuel, Elvis Dowson, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi all, On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: >> [...] >> > Just a small comment to say that Android is not the only one (but > certainly the most visible, and thus easiest to bash on) not making > effort to get their stuff in mainline. OpenWRT people are also > maintaining their fork of the kernel, without even using git, and not > contributing much to mainline (I'm certainly mistaken on that last > comment). > > I'm still stuck to use their 2.6.32 to use my AR71xx-based (MIPS) > boards, just this part is +15kloc. > For the record, a first patch's set for AR71XX/AR724X/AR913X support has been posted on linux-mips ml: http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2010-11/msg00085.html - Arnaud ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-07 21:44 ` Arnaud Lacombe ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2010-11-13 3:06 ` Arnaud Lacombe @ 2010-11-15 17:34 ` Stefan Monnier 2010-11-16 6:23 ` Brian Swetland 3 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2010-11-15 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel > Just a small comment to say that Android is not the only one (but > certainly the most visible, and thus easiest to bash on) not making > effort to get their stuff in mainline. It's not only that. But Android in general is also a very poor citizen w.r.t Free Software since it tends to be distributed in closed form for devices that only work if you add proprietary code, and it supports DRM-style nightmares. It's not as dangerous to Free Software as the iphone, tho. > OpenWRT people are also maintaining their fork of the kernel, without > even using git, and not contributing much to mainline (I'm certainly > mistaken on that last comment). I can assure you that the contributions are as frequent, important, and significant as the OpenWRT can muster: they have very limited resources, which is the main limitation. But also because of those limited resources, it's in their best interest to get things upstream. Android is different since the company behind it made a conscious decision to fork even though they have/had the resources necessary to push their changes upstream. Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-15 17:34 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2010-11-16 6:23 ` Brian Swetland 2010-11-16 7:02 ` Anca Emanuel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Brian Swetland @ 2010-11-16 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: linux-kernel On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: >> Just a small comment to say that Android is not the only one (but >> certainly the most visible, and thus easiest to bash on) not making >> effort to get their stuff in mainline. > > It's not only that. But Android in general is also a very poor citizen > w.r.t Free Software since it tends to be distributed in closed form for > devices that only work if you add proprietary code, and it supports > DRM-style nightmares. We release the userspace and kernel work we do under Apache2/BSD/MIT and GPLv2 respectively. We have always insisted on only GPLv2 code for kernel drivers, and have never supported binary loadable kernel drivers. We typically have to deal with some proprietary userspace libraries (opengl es 2 libraries are a typical example), though we've been working to reduce the number from release to release. This is an artifact of the current SoC offerings more than any policy we have -- we much prefer entirely open solutions and actively pursue them whenever possible. I'm not sure what DRM-style nightmares we're talking about -- last I looked, the stock Android platform doesn't have any DRM support of any sort built-in. We certainly can't demand that every OEM work this way, but so it goes. > It's not as dangerous to Free Software as the iphone, tho. Whew! >> OpenWRT people are also maintaining their fork of the kernel, without >> even using git, and not contributing much to mainline (I'm certainly >> mistaken on that last comment). > > I can assure you that the contributions are as frequent, important, and > significant as the OpenWRT can muster: they have very limited resources, > which is the main limitation. But also because of those limited > resources, it's in their best interest to get things upstream. > > Android is different since the company behind it made a conscious > decision to fork even though they have/had the resources necessary to > push their changes upstream. I view it more as we made a decision to ship (and enable others to ship) successful products as priority one, while still making the source available (as is required, or in some cases not required). I am always intrigued that everyone is an expert in our resource availability. Apparently my team has a bunch of engineers loafing around when they could be contributing patches upstream! Or, maybe, we're also a very busy bunch of people supporting multiple SoCs, multiple hardware platforms, multiple releases, who also send code upstream from time to time, but clearly not as much or as often as people would like (including ourselves). Brian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline 2010-11-16 6:23 ` Brian Swetland @ 2010-11-16 7:02 ` Anca Emanuel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Anca Emanuel @ 2010-11-16 7:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brian Swetland Cc: Stefan Monnier, linux-kernel, Roland Dreier, Thomas Gleixner, Greg KH, Arnaud Lacombe, Elvis Dowson > We have always insisted on only GPLv2 code for kernel drivers, and > have never supported binary loadable kernel drivers. <snip> > I view it more as we made a decision to ship (and enable others to > ship) successful products as priority one, while still making the > source available (as is required, or in some cases not required). > > Brian Hi Brian, can you get some patches upstream ? And with Google behind you, make it open source ? And make ARM A9 Mali video docs available for everyone ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-01-11 14:33 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 55+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-10-30 18:18 Forked android kernel development from linux kernel mainline Elvis Dowson 2010-11-02 21:25 ` Janakiram Sistla 2010-11-06 18:12 ` Greg KH 2010-11-06 19:22 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-06 19:40 ` Anca Emanuel 2010-11-06 23:40 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-06 23:52 ` david 2010-11-07 0:03 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-07 0:13 ` Alan Cox 2010-11-07 0:20 ` Janakiram Sistla 2010-11-09 16:30 ` Mark Brown 2010-11-07 0:20 ` david 2010-11-10 13:54 ` Pavel Machek 2010-11-10 20:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2011-01-11 14:33 ` Pavel Machek 2010-11-06 23:42 ` Janakiram Sistla 2010-11-06 23:09 ` Greg KH 2010-11-07 0:24 ` Randy Dunlap 2010-11-07 8:38 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-07 11:44 ` Anca Emanuel 2010-11-07 15:57 ` Greg KH 2010-11-07 20:06 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-07 21:31 ` Greg KH 2010-11-07 21:46 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-07 21:47 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-09 18:10 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-09 18:24 ` Greg KH 2010-11-09 18:37 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-09 18:42 ` david 2010-11-09 18:52 ` Elvis Dowson 2010-11-09 20:55 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-09 22:32 ` Alan Cox 2010-11-10 0:35 ` Ted Ts'o 2010-11-10 9:53 ` Florian Mickler 2010-11-10 20:55 ` Alan Cox 2010-11-07 21:44 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-07 21:59 ` Greg KH 2010-11-07 23:09 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-08 1:42 ` Greg KH 2010-11-08 2:22 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-09 13:27 ` Florian Fainelli 2010-11-11 0:33 ` Roland Dreier 2010-11-11 0:40 ` Thomas Gleixner 2010-11-12 3:15 ` Roland Dreier 2010-11-12 10:26 ` Florian Fainelli 2010-11-11 0:47 ` Greg KH 2010-11-11 11:21 ` Florian Fainelli 2010-11-12 3:17 ` Roland Dreier 2010-11-11 11:18 ` Florian Fainelli 2010-11-09 13:27 ` Florian Fainelli 2010-11-09 13:51 ` [OpenWrt-Devel] " Wolfgang Spraul 2010-11-13 3:06 ` Arnaud Lacombe 2010-11-15 17:34 ` Stefan Monnier 2010-11-16 6:23 ` Brian Swetland 2010-11-16 7:02 ` Anca Emanuel
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).