With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements
1–10 of 74 posts
Re: With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements
#2This appears to be the source: https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/modul...
Device tree is mandatory and vendors are encouraged to upstream the code. It sounds like Google has an eventual goal of building a single kernel that can boot on most devices which is a great thing for everyone.
Re: With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements
#3This appears to be the source: https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/modul... Device tree is mandatory and vendors are encouraged to upstream the code. It sounds like Google has an eventual goal of building a single kernel that can boot on most devices which is a great thing for everyone.
I do not think it can be done. I am mantaining a kernel for ARM a family of SBCs. Device trees are great compared to old platform files, however they are not enough. We have a lot of commits to fix other things that DT cannot access.
Re: With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements
#4AIUI, the situation until now has been that essentially, every Android device released has its own fork of Android. Which is absurd, and explains why the Android security update situation is such a mess. Glad Google are trying to fix this.
Re: With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements
#5This appears to be the source: https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/modul... Device tree is mandatory and vendors are encouraged to upstream the code. It sounds like Google has an eventual goal of building a single kernel that can boot on most devices which is a great thing for everyone.
I do not think it can be done. I am mantaining a kernel for ARM a family of SBCs. Device trees are great compared to old platform files, however they are not enough. We have a lot of commits to fix other things that DT cannot access.
Insightful.
To me it seems like a chicken-egg problem: silicon designers have no incentive to standardize the way SOCs work because there will be no benefit to the software ATM.
I'm curious if forcing the egg, common kernels, will have silicon designers rethink their engineering efforts in order to save time on software.
Re: With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not think it can be done. I am mantaining a kernel for ARM a family of SBCs. Device trees are great compared to old platform files, however they are not enough. We have a lot of commits to fix other things that DT cannot access.
Insightful. To me it seems like a chicken-egg problem: silicon designers have no incentive to standardize the way SOCs work because there will be no benefit to the software ATM. I'm curious if forcing the egg, common kernels, will have silicon designers rethink their engineering efforts in order to save time on software.
It almost makes me feel like MS had the right model with Windows Phone to a large degree, they decided what chipsets were supported and were responsible for integrating support into the platform - though their list of support SoCs was woefully small. I really see no reason Google couldn’t take the reigns in on developing board support packages for SoC’s and if OEM’s want to use new ones that aren’t in-tree they either work to get it merged or Google doesn’t give them a Google Apps license for the device.
Re: With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements
#7Describing Linux as "horrendously difficult to use" is disingenuous at best. There are so many different variations between distros and what people mean when they say "Linux" that to categorize them all in this tone is hardly professional. I'm not familiar with betanews.com, but it does claim to be a tech site.
Re: With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements
#8AIUI, the situation until now has been that essentially, every Android device released has its own fork of Android. Which is absurd, and explains why the Android security update situation is such a mess. Glad Google are trying to fix this.
> AIUI, the situation until now has been that essentially, every Android device released has its own fork of Android. Which is absurd, and explains why the Android security update situation is such a mess.
The situation is the same for all embedded Linux devices. All have non-mainlined (and non-sidelined) changes to device tree, startup code, pin muxing code, special kernel parameters, special drivers, specially adjusted drivers, special vendor drivers that are C wrappers around binary blobs etc..
Out-of-tree maintenance is possible, but this still often needs to build against the kernel sources, not some more generic kernel library (or ABI, if you want). Other embedded platforms are worse (eCos), some are better (QNX, MQX) in separating device driver code into units that do not depend on the whole world.
Kernel maintainers are very vocal in saying "it's not me, it's you" and laughing in your face, but if every vendor has the same issues with managing in a sane way customization of your operating system since a decade and a half, it becomes a bit of a running joke.
Re: With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements
#9This appears to be the source: https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/modul... Device tree is mandatory and vendors are encouraged to upstream the code. It sounds like Google has an eventual goal of building a single kernel that can boot on most devices which is a great thing for everyone.
I do not think it can be done. I am mantaining a kernel for ARM a family of SBCs. Device trees are great compared to old platform files, however they are not enough. We have a lot of commits to fix other things that DT cannot access.
I'm curious as to what things DT cannot access. Is this a general issue (and if so have you spoken to the DT maintainers?), or is this because the systems you are working on are doing something unexpected?
Re: With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements
#10Describing Linux as "horrendously difficult to use" is disingenuous at best. There are so many different variations between distros and what people mean when they say "Linux" that to categorize them all in this tone is hardly professional. I'm not familiar with betanews.com, but it does claim to be a tech site.
Anyone who says this has never tried to troubleshoot a Windows Wifi connection...