Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Asahi Linya (朝日りにゃ〜)'s posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Asahi Linya (朝日りにゃ〜)

@SharpLimefox @Sobex Hard forks aren't sustainable. Asahi Linux tracks upstream and with that comes a maintenance cost proportional to how much it diverges. The plan was always to upstream almost everything... the project doesn't have a long term future if we get stuck maintaining large amounts out of tree forever (a few patches is OK and we already have a couple "upstream is never going to take this and that's fine, we can live with that" cases... but it can't grow without bound)

29 August at 20:11 | Open on vt.social
4 comments
Sobex

@lina @SharpLimefox Urgh, what falls in the upstream won’t take that ever case ?

29 August at 20:14 | Open on social.sciences.re
Asahi Linya (朝日りにゃ〜) replied to Sobex

@Sobex @SharpLimefox TSO support for fast x86 emulation and the M1 cpuidle driver, both are NAKed by all the ARM employees (for politics reasons) and they own the arm64 platform subsystem.

The actual patches are pretty small and not intrusive though so it's not a big maintenance burden.

In theory the cpuidle stuff is supposed to be replaced by some PSCI transport alternative that doesn't exist, but that idea has been floated for years now and not gone anywhere...

29 August at 20:22 | Open on vt.social
Sobex replied to Asahi Linya (朝日りにゃ〜)

@lina @SharpLimefox Hmm, what are the politics reason (rather than undocumented, and not required to make the hardware run) ?

29 August at 20:24 | Open on social.sciences.re
Asahi Linya (朝日りにゃ〜) replied to Sobex

@Sobex @SharpLimefox For TSO they fear "fragmentation" as in developers using TSO to work around arm64 porting issues instead of fixing the code, even though there is no evidence of anyone ever even thinking to do that.

For cpuidle, the maintainers want PSCI (a firmware interface) to be the only cpuidle driver to avoid driver proliferation. Unfortunately the PSCI spec was written with assumptions about the platform that make it impossible to implement on Apple Silicon despite it being a conformant arm64 implementation (they require optional features).

@Sobex @SharpLimefox For TSO they fear "fragmentation" as in developers using TSO to work around arm64 porting issues instead of fixing the code, even though there is no evidence of anyone ever even thinking to do that.

For cpuidle, the maintainers want PSCI (a firmware interface) to be the only cpuidle driver to avoid driver proliferation. Unfortunately the PSCI spec was written with assumptions about the platform that make it impossible to implement on Apple Silicon despite it being a conformant...

29 August at 20:27 | Open on vt.social
Go Up