Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qualcomm Linux 2.0

qualcomm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#21

Post by zamadatix »

eschaton wrote: post #20
nullpoint420 wrote: post #17

Just upstream your drivers! Then you don't need Qualcomm Linux.... you just have Linux.

Why can’t upstream just take their drivers? Isn’t that the point of requiring those drivers to be GPL?

Imagine you wrote a WYSIWYG text editor, like Libre Office Writer. You have all sorts of functionality and an overall architecture which makes it sane to upkeep the project & have things work well together. Then someone else makes a custom font, but kind of does it their own way and with a different approach making it a one off from the way the rest of the fonts all work and are used in the program maybe using a custom font file format parser and different UI element even though you know it could have just used the normal, already maintained and planned out code paths.

You can of course merge anything with the right license if you so like, like that one off font code into your editor, but if it doesn't fit well into the overall project or meet the general quality standards of it then it's not practical to and can actually be worse than not including it. Upstreaming is about submitting something the maintainer can reasonably accept and maintain, not just about whether working code is available. GPL licensed code provides the latter, it's still up to someone (either the original company or some other interested person) to make it fit right first.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#22

Post by aseipp »

diabllicseagull wrote: post #16
wmf wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's happening: https://www.phoronix.com/news/HP-EliteBook-X-G2q-Linux

From the June 4th article: "These patches are a result of a collaboration between a couple of Qualcomm engineers taking part in an internal sprint and were created over 3 days." it's not giving me any warm and fuzzy.

They've been upstreaming drivers for the X2 platform for months at this point, since at least late 2025 (just search "glymur" or "kaanapali" on LKML).

The patch referenced in the Phoronix article is just a device tree file. That is the easiest part of the whole thing. As usual he's just farming every random LKML patch he can for clicks.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#24

Post by wmf »

aseipp wrote: post #22
diabllicseagull wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the June 4th article: "These patches are a result of a collaboration between a couple of Qualcomm engineers taking part in an internal sprint and were created over 3 days." it's not giving me any warm and fuzzy.

They've been upstreaming drivers for the X2 platform for months at this point, since at least late 2025 (just search "glymur" or "kaanapali" on LKML). The patch referenced in the Phoronix article is just a device tree file. That is the easiest part of the whole thing. As usual he's just farming every random LKML patch he can for clicks.

The open source world has a habit of leaving the easiest part of the whole thing unfinished for years or decades, so I salute this patch and I salute Phoronix for calling attention to it.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#25

Post by wmf »

eschaton wrote: post #20
nullpoint420 wrote: post #17

Just upstream your drivers! Then you don't need Qualcomm Linux.... you just have Linux.

Why can’t upstream just take their drivers? Isn’t that the point of requiring those drivers to be GPL?

Upstream requires a level of quality most developers cannot meet.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#26

Post by aseipp »

wmf wrote: post #24
aseipp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've been upstreaming drivers for the X2 platform for months at this point, since at least late 2025 (just search "glymur" or "kaanapali" on LKML). The patch referenced in the Phoronix article is just a device tree file. That is the easiest part of the whole thing. As usual he's just farming every random LKML patch he can for clicks.

The open source world has a habit of leaving the easiest part of the whole thing unfinished for years or decades, so I salute this patch and I salute Phoronix for calling attention to it.

Point well taken.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#28

Post by mrbluecoat »

coredog64 wrote: post #14

Recently bought an SBC with a QCS6490 ( https://radxa.com/products/dragon/q6a/ ). Curious to see if the vendor winds up using this as a base.

We'll see. They purposely dropped all server/console support and now only offer a Debian desktop image, which seems crazy for an SBC. Not exactly a welcome mat:

> Other variants that were previously provided AS-IS are no longer provided. Interested users need to build those by themselves.

https://github.com/radxa-build/radxa-dragon-q6a

AI / NPU use cases have been severely hampered as well:

https://gist.github.com/Foadsf/3cc2e0ed357c3ac7180589701bf83...

I've personally been wrestling with their broken I2C for a couple weeks.

Really want to love this board but lots of sharp edges at the moment. Hopefully Qualcomm keeps dedicating resources to improving things - I know it's hard work!

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#29

Post by pjmlp »

LorenDB wrote: post #2

And here I was hoping they'd decided to support Linux on the Snapdragon X2 chips.

When will folks learn companies only support Linux or any other FOSS to the extent their own business goals?

None of them are on the game for the well being of the community or whatever.

Profits and lower R&D costs, that is all.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#30

Post by guilamu »

pjmlp wrote: post #29
LorenDB wrote: post #2

And here I was hoping they'd decided to support Linux on the Snapdragon X2 chips.

When will folks learn companies only support Linux or any other FOSS to the extent their own business goals? None of them are on the game for the well being of the community or whatever. Profits and lower R&D costs, that is all.

Wouldn't you say that Valve is an exception to that rule?
Post reply on HN