Problems booting exynos5420 with >1 CPU

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 02:26:43PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 04:53:34PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > > You do realize that you have absolutely zero leverage over us on this,
> > > > right? Our product is already shipped with kernel code that fixes
> > > > this.
> > > 
> > > That is never a justification for forcing /any/ code into the kernel.
> > > 
> > > We've been here before with the iPAQs, where there were all sorts of
> > > horrid hacks that were in the code for that device, and we said no to
> > > it, and we kept it out of the mainline kernel, and stopped those hacks
> > > polluting elsewhere (because people got to know on the whole that if
> > > they used those hacks, it would bar them from mainline participation.)
> > 
> > That's different.  The iPaq had very little in terms of firmware, and 
> > the one it had was field upgradable with almost no risk to brick it 
> > (unless you wanted to hack the firmware code but that's another story).  
> > The reason iPaq had never been well supported in mainline can be 
> > attributed to laziness for not wanting to make the code into a shape 
> > acceptable for mainline inclusion.  But nothing fundamentally prevented 
> > that from happening if someone had wanted to do it.
> 
> No, I was specifically thinking about the various iPAQ specific things
> like the additional platform specific ATAGs that they invented with
> zero reference to mainline, and then expected them to be accepted as-is.
> 
> I gave them a very clear message over that (which was "no way") and that
> was essentially the last of their mainline submissions.

That's basically what I'm saying.  They were too lazy to fix their code.  
But nothing prevented that otherwise. They certainly couldn't use the 
"firmware is broken and too hard to update" excuse.


Nicolas