[kernel] Add patch for i.MX6 Utilite device dtb, drop old exynos patch

[Peter Robinson]

>> It would be useful for you to advertise this intention and send things
>> like details out to the kernel mailing list. I'll need to re-read my
>> IRC logs but I don't remember you mentioning any of the above, which
>> does sound reasonable, to me in the conversation we had. I'm not sure
>> the conversation that was outlined in the ARM mailing list but it
>> sounds like something that should be broadcast more to the Fedora
>> kernel list.
>
> You aren't wrong, and I'll be sure to do that with some of the stuff
> we're thinking about that came up last night.  However, there are
> literally 4 people that commit.  I thought I had spoken to each of
> them individually.  Seems my memory is going.

Maybe, as it wasn't on list I couldn't comment, at least from the
conversation you had with me I didn't get the idea that this was a
general change of direction so maybe there was some miscommunication.

>>> We aren't making special rules just for you.
>>
>> We maybe it's just the way it seems as until now I've not seen anyone
>> else be targeted prior to this.... maybe it's just me doing work!
>
> See the thread with Kyle from last night.  Seriously, stop thinking
> we're targeting you.

I have seen it now (mailing lists are good for procrastination!), this
thread pre dates that though.

>> Is that round about terms meaning that the Fedora kernel team are
>> going to start to assist in the ARM issues :-D
>
> Not exactly.  It's more "hey, primary arches aren't supposed to be
> broken willy-nilly, so we should probably pay attention to ARM more
> now and not break it at random."  That's not so much "assist" as it is
> "do no harm".

:-D well the upstream ARM people seems to manage to do that all on
their own... see omap4 and Panda* state as a perfect example of that
:-P

>> I try to help and keep the impact of ARM down for you guys but kernel
>> isn't a core skill I ever thought I wanted to learn (I often say about
>> ARM that I now know more about the Fedora Core OS and kernel than I
>> ever thought I wanted to know!) and if the process becomes too arduous
>> I stop enjoying it and I'll go and find some other project to get my
>> teeth into as there's no shortage. I'm not saying here that the
>> process doesn't need to change and improve but just be aware I think
>> it needs balance and it needs to be measured so that you don't scare
>> off the people that are trying to help you.
>
> Please review the thread with Kyle last night.  That's kind of where
> we're headed and feedback on that would be good.

I've read and replied on one point. I've never used patchworks but
seen it a lot around so I can't really comment on that specifically
but it seems useful. On the rest it seems mostly OK.

>>> Also, for the past several years we've been less than transparent
>>> about what patches we take and why we take them.  Not just for ARM,
>>> but overall.  I think we need to fix that.  I think having a bug
>>> attached to it is fairly clear.  If there's no bug, post to the list.
>>> This isn't extremely difficult to do and it applies to everyone.
>>
>> Well I don't think targeting me (at least that's what it appears to
>> me) is the way to fix that. I don't see any wider announcement to the
>
> I'm beginning to believe that there is nothing I can say that will
> convince you that we aren't targeting you.  Do you have some kind of
> persecution complex :)?

Nope! It's mostly just from what I've read myself and I've had others
comment to me "Wow what did you do wrong to piss jwb off so bad" but I
believe you now. Maybe it's just a communication problem. Believe me I
generally couldn't give a shit and hell... I've been dealing with the
pain of ARM kernel stuff for nearly two years now and I'm mostly still
sane (shush!) and I'm still here...

>> list or even updated on the Kernel wiki page. In fact to quote from
>> the wiki "If you are sending lots of changes to the Fedora kernel,
>> then it may make more sense for you to get commit access. (Note, for
>> most things, sending them upstream is far more preferable)."
>
> The wiki is a horribly out of date thing.  To be honest, I haven't
> read the wiki in months.  Point taken, we'll update it, possibly by
> just deleting a lot of things.  Then probably adding whatever we come
> up with here.

Even if you delete a lot of it and put a message "if your unsure go
and ask on the kernel mailing list and #fedora-kernel IRC" :-)

>>> As I said before, config changes are probably fine without posting.
>>> Patches, particularly out-of-tree patches, should get some simple
>>> review.
>>
>> Probably fine? If they're more widely impacting I will most certainly
>> post them just like I've done them in the past. Personally I think I
>> have a pretty good overview of the impact of config changes in the ARM
>> sphere and I think it then becomes arduous for all involved.
>
> Sure.  Wide ranging things can get posted as you have done.  I was
> mostly referring to the "toggle 3 ARM drivers in the ARM configs" kind
> of things.  To be honest, I'm good with posting everything, but I was
> trying to avoid additional burden.

Presumably the config updates during the rawhide kernel devel merge
window is a special case here ;-)

>>> In simple view, you are correct.  It doesn't break anything else.  In
>>> the larger view, I really want to start backing away from random patch
>>> grabs.  Upstream has a review process for a reason, and I'd like to
>>> leverage that for patches we carry.  Otherwise we wind up carrying
>>> patches that are "getting in RSN" which aren't actually getting in any
>>> time soon.
>>
>> Believe me I don't like patch grabs either! But similar to secureboot
>> there are some that are useful such as the BeagleBone Black support
>> and some other devices that are key to getting people engaging and
>
> Sure.  Post them, we'll get them in.

I'm trying to get that done for 3.12 atm so that we can get some wider testing

>> using Fedora on ARM and I believe in those cases, like secure boot,
>> the patches are justifiable to open Fedora on ARM and Fedora in
>> general up to a wider audience.
>
> Absolutely.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't get posted (and tracked
> in patchwork if we go that way).  It's arguable we want them reviewed
> even more closely because they're going to impact a wider audience
> with the explicit goal of attracting people.

Yep, seems reasonable.

> Really, it's about knowing where things are coming from and where
> they're headed, and making sure we aren't grabbing incomplete stuff
> from upstream.  The conversation with Kyle from last night on this
> list go towards that too, so please weigh in.

Yep, it sounds reasonable, I've always tried to provide a comment in
the .spec to where I've pulled a patch from as much as for my own
sanity and memory :-)

Peter