Patches for ppc?

[Phil Terry]

Ooops,

Sorry guys, this is probably the wrong forum and I didn't mean to sound
like I was trashing anyones efforts here. 

As I said, I'm not picking on Freescale or anyone else on this list. I'm
just trying to understand this process as an embedded developer who
works at companies which use code bases provided by other 3rd parties. 

I understand its an ongoing process, change is the only constant. So I
try not to whine that my particular board/chip/issue isn't fixed in the
latest kernel, patch, support package and I try to patch things up and
make progress on *my* project by pulling  bits and pieces together
hoping that my stuff will eventually get fixed. 

But then I see comments from other people who I assume are in the same
boat and the response is, "no one uses that. Theres no demand for it.
We're dropping that" Its like when I go to a pub in England and ask for
a pint of "mild" ale. "We don't serve that here, there's no demand for
it." Huh, didn't I just demand it? So then I get worried, how do I know
who's plan and schedule include/excludes my board/chip/issue?

I was trying to raise that generic issue, which is why I tried to be
generic. Didn't mean to gore anyones ox.

Cheers
Phil (who now has to drink American Beer.....)

On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 11:40 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Phil Terry wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 17:14 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> It's not a question of indivudual files being copied over -  
> >>> things are
> >>> done differently in arch/powerpc.  Things are gradually being ported
> >>> over to arch/powerpc as people get the time - that's why arch/ppc
> >>> isn't gone yet.
> >>
> >> And to be blunt, one of the points of arch/powerpc vs. arch/ppc is
> >> to actually leave behind some stuff.  "If no one ports it, no one
> >> wants it".
> >
> > So am I alone in getting a mixed message from "Linux community" to
> > "embedded community"?
> >
> > On the one hand we have people like GKH telling embedded people to  
> > stop
> > being private company/device specific forks but to submit their  
> > hardware
> > to the tree where it will be supported "for free" by the kernel  
> > hackers,
> > saving us the "chore" of supporting "our" code through all the kernel
> > changes and forever chasing it.
> >
> > On the other hand we have people telling us that because we are too  
> > lazy
> > to support "our" code the kernel guys aren't going to pull it forward
> > for us.
> 
> There is clearly a balance here.  While I don't think too many people  
> are going to disagree with GKH intent, there is a practicality about  
> it.  If no kernel hacker has access to a particular board that was  
> supported in arch/ppc and no one seems to care about it than it seems  
> to be a candidate to not move forward.
> 
> > So in fact people 3rd party people like me are in between real  
> > problems,
> > we base our code on say a Freescale chip, who submit to the kernel to
> > save their support issues and we base our code on that. Now, the
> > Freescale guys are too busy porting their "latest" chips across the
> > PPC/Powerpc divide to port the "old" stuff so it gets "left behind".
> > That old stuff is still selling and the people who based code on it  
> > had
> > the expectation that the code would continue to be supported. So  
> > now I'm
> > being told not only to "port my stuff or lose it" but now also port
> > freescale's stuff or lose it.
> 
> If there is some specific freescale board/chip that is being left  
> behind that you're concerned about please let me know.
> 
> > And then we get beaten up because we "stayed" with "ancient stuff"  
> > like
> > 2.6.21!!!
> >
> > Not picking on Freescale, or Segher, just trying to wave the flag,  
> > lots
> > of people want it, they are just not all in a position to save it
> > because we "embedded" people are by nature a fractured community of
> > niche players with products that don't turn over with out customers
> > every six months, some people will want to buy a product for years...
> >
> > And yes I do understand the "Linux kernel hackers are nothing more  
> > than
> > a group of diverse people from many companies so why is embedded any
> > different" argument, I just don't have an answer right now other  
> > than it
> > is.
> 
> I'd ask you to mention specific boards/chip/functionality rather than  
> generic statements so we can actual be aware of things we're  
> forgetting or are important to people that we are not aware of.
> 
> The fact that arch/ppc is 'dead' has been posted on the lists  
> numerous times to give people the opportunity to let us all know  
> what's important to people.
> 
> - k
> 
>