On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:17:53PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 03:34:47PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > There was a lot of pushback against LTSI,

> pushback from whom?

Linaro members who wanted the LSK.

> > the most concrete bit I could
> > see was the inclusion of board support and vendor specific drivers -

> That's exactly the goal of LTSI.

Right, which is a problem for some people.

> > people doing products won't care so much but people releasing source
> > weren't thrilled with the idea of it ending up either conflicting with
> > their internal work or showing up in the diffstat of what they release.

> What is conflicting?  BSP and drivers for hardware that you don't use?

No, hardware that you do use.  If LTSI is including changes for a driver
that's also being worked on in the vendor's own trees then at some point 
the two sets of changes are going to have to get merged which makes the
workflow more stressful.