From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30B9F94B for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 10:43:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com (mail-io0-f195.google.com [209.85.223.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC3AF71C for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 10:43:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f195.google.com with SMTP id y12-v6so8398706ioj.13 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 03:43:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180905042246.GA2977@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <20180905074840.GB29052@kroah.com> <20180905083120.GA28353@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: From: Linus Walleij Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:43:05 +0200 Message-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Jon Masters , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg KH Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Challenges in Upstream vs. Embargoed Development in Intel Graphics. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:25 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I think in the generalized case, you also want the reverse, but > that may be harder: When targetting specific software products > that you want to integrate your code, there should be a deadline > for the latest point by which code needs to be posted in > public. This brings in the process of procurement, as in how companies making products source their misc hardware like sensors, touchscreens, displays, FPGAs or whatnot. Maybe this is obvious. It happened at one point that we were sourcing hardware from a third party, and it was pretty complex and I asked procurement to put a demand on the company to provide upstream support so we could just grab the latest kernel and use that driver. I heard other very FOSS-oriented companies ask the same and is pretty much what I've heard people like Jon Masters and the Chromebook people say in relation to upstream first (they can slam me if they disagree) - others also want an upstream first approach from their component suppliers and it is going to be part of the procurement process so having upstream first is going to be a competitive advantage or even strict requirement for the component vendor. As it happened in my case the vendor was very unhappy with this and unused to this kind of requirements. (They have since changed their attitude so no-one needs to be outed.) What I realized was that instead of being "hard" on vendors with this, I could gain more by being let's say "firm". I required that in order to procure their component, they should present an upstreaming strategy, and post an initial patch set for the specific product before we would agree to procurement. This was more of a gentlemen agreement than a hard contract clause, but it worked very well to transform that company, and I think it is a good way, because being too hard can be counter-productive, I guess it comes from simple diplomacy, people do not like threats. Yours, Linus Walleij