Post AwcLsh2WeGXwHKGKCe by gregkh@social.kernel.org
 (DIR) More posts by gregkh@social.kernel.org
 (DIR) Post #AwcLsh2WeGXwHKGKCe by gregkh@social.kernel.org
       2025-07-29T06:07:38.469758Z
       
       0 likes, 2 repeats
       
       Looks like the risc-v community is learning from history!  Hopefully this results in more upstream development efforts: https://riscv.org/blog/2025/07/risc-v-upstreaming/
       
 (DIR) Post #AweJ4Q2Xgh8Y84BSoC by hrw@society.oftrolls.com
       2025-07-29T08:16:43Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @gregkhThat post reminds me many moments in Arm architecture history...Creation of armhf to have all distros target the same armv7.Creation of Linaro and work done by people there.SBSA, BSA specifications which tries to define aarch64 hardware and firmware interfaces.Work done on making enterprise Linux distros running on aarch64 servers.I hope that RISE will not follow aarch64 mistakes.
       
 (DIR) Post #AweJ4R3HvPKNGfXZbs by stsquad@mastodon.org.uk
       2025-07-29T10:14:53Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @hrwAny particular mistakes? I think System Ready for Client PC's could of come sooner and maybe we should have spent less time arguing about Device Tree vs ACPI but in general the standardisation push was the right thing - it's just poorly distributed.@gregkh
       
 (DIR) Post #AweJ4S3KCkx2N4Z7J2 by gregkh@social.kernel.org
       2025-07-30T05:12:26.610215Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @stsquad @hrw Fixing the lack of almost all riscv soc drivers to be upstream so that I can boot a kernel.org release on one of them (i.e. a normal developer can test their changes) would be a good start.  Which is one of the things that article says...