User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

This does not count for all embedded developers

This does not count for all embedded developers

Posted Feb 11, 2009 10:40 UTC (Wed) by wsa (subscriber, #52415)
Parent article: Wakelocks and the embedded problem

I would have liked if you wrote "a lot of embedded developers" instead of "embedded developers" at times. We at Pengutronix, for example, are working hard on getting our patches upstream and advertising this to our customers, and I know a few others who do, too. "Embedded" is not just the usual suspects and their mobile phones, there are numerous devices solving industrial tasks which want to be supported. Quality is definately needed here.

In my book, the time constraint problem is the biggest one. Customers do want results whilst the mainline review process needs time, so you often end up working with a customer-version and a mainline-version, porting fixes back and forth. Also, one can see that the hardware developers face the same time constraints (be it processor manufacturers or board designers), which makes producing kernel quality code an even bigger challenge because of sloppy hardware.

I am just now working on a generic SPI-driver for the i.MX-platforms for mainline. Everyone who wants to get an idea what difficulties an embedded kernel developer may face is invited to join me. This one is a prime example.


(Log in to post comments)

This does not count for all embedded developers

Posted Feb 11, 2009 13:59 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

You are right, I should not have used quite such a broad brush. There are quite a few embedded developers who make a point of working with the upstream kernel, and the number seems to be growing. My apologies.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds