5 ms·

Naive question, but with a commercial product like the i.MX8M from NXP Semiconductors, is there really not enough in it for them to develop Linux support for th

Naive question, but with a commercial product like the i.MX8M from NXP Semiconductors, is there really not enough in it for them to develop Linux support for their product, rather than leaving it to other parties? Presumably some OS supported things like the i.MX8M’s accelerometer from the launch date, or are these chips shipped to OEMs on the basis that the low level functions work, but all OS support has to be created by someone else?

Jonnax 7y ago
From what I understand they would give you a bunch of binary blobs or either have a fork of the Linux kernel with a lot of patches to get the device working. So they may support a single old version because the effort of upstreaming the support would be expensive. The blog post says that the Librem paid 15 developers full time for 2 years on the project. That's a huge expense and most of all the customers of the SoC won't be demanding upstream support. Of course also what happens is that you get into a rabbit hole of patching your fork until it becomes a huge task to reintegrate.
chme 7y ago
I asked myself that very question often, but the reality is that only customers that take a small number of those chips (<1.000.000) care about mainline support. For the first tier customers they get a custom solution developed for them, and have access to all the specs under the NDA, but since that is the case, they cannot develop stuff for mainline and just produce blobs.
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  The i.MX8M as I understand is a chip for car navigation/entertainment systems. I wonder whether the shift towards OTA updates will encourage manufacturers to care about mainline support. Think about all the models and versions that a car company has, they’re going to have to be maintained for a decade or more, and doing that with fractured code bases and kernel patches sounds like an immense pain.
  - detaro 7y ago
    Car manufacturers seem weirdly unmoved by immense pain in software development.
teddyh 7y ago
For some reason, every hardware company, without exception, it terrible at software development. They just can’t do it right. It’s probably a cultural difference, somehow, with the developent style and/or NDA requirements possibly having their impact.
- sildur 7y ago
  Apple too?
  - NateEag 7y ago
    Lately, Apple does kinda suck at software development. I spent days hunting down issues in the launch iOS 13 simulator that turned out not to happen on real hardware (and had never happened worth the iOS 13 launch). Their UX is on a downward trend for several years now, IMO. Historically I've heard Apple described as a software company that uses hardware to achieve competitive advantage. Apple sucking is relative, obviously - their stuff is still better than most other products, but it's not add good as it used to be, IMO. I wonder if the iPhone's success has transformed them into more of a hardware company?
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      Name a good piece of software of similar power
      - FpUser 7y ago
        What software are you talking about? If it is the whole OS then it is a matter of user's preference and telling Mac user that PC is better and the other way around is the best way to heat air without any useful outcome.
    - jsjohnst 7y ago
      > Historically I've heard Apple described as a software company that uses hardware to achieve competitive advantage. I’ve always heard it as the exact opposite, hardware company that uses software to achieve competitive advantage. If you look at what they actually “sell”, the version I’ve heard makes much more sense.

Jonnax 7y ago

From what I understand they would give you a bunch of binary blobs or either have a fork of the Linux kernel with a lot of patches to get the device working. So they may support a single old version because the effort of upstreaming the support would be expensive. The blog post says that the Librem paid 15 developers full time for 2 years on the project. That's a huge expense and most of all the customers of the SoC won't be demanding upstream support. Of course also what happens is that you get into a rabbit hole of patching your fork until it becomes a huge task to reintegrate.

chme 7y ago

I asked myself that very question often, but the reality is that only customers that take a small number of those chips (<1.000.000) care about mainline support. For the first tier customers they get a custom solution developed for them, and have access to all the specs under the NDA, but since that is the case, they cannot develop stuff for mainline and just produce blobs.

Brakenshire 7y ago
The i.MX8M as I understand is a chip for car navigation/entertainment systems. I wonder whether the shift towards OTA updates will encourage manufacturers to care about mainline support. Think about all the models and versions that a car company has, they’re going to have to be maintained for a decade or more, and doing that with fractured code bases and kernel patches sounds like an immense pain.
- detaro 7y ago
  Car manufacturers seem weirdly unmoved by immense pain in software development.

teddyh 7y ago

For some reason, every hardware company, without exception, it terrible at software development. They just can’t do it right. It’s probably a cultural difference, somehow, with the developent style and/or NDA requirements possibly having their impact.

sildur 7y ago
Apple too?
- NateEag 7y ago
  Lately, Apple does kinda suck at software development. I spent days hunting down issues in the launch iOS 13 simulator that turned out not to happen on real hardware (and had never happened worth the iOS 13 launch). Their UX is on a downward trend for several years now, IMO. Historically I've heard Apple described as a software company that uses hardware to achieve competitive advantage. Apple sucking is relative, obviously - their stuff is still better than most other products, but it's not add good as it used to be, IMO. I wonder if the iPhone's success has transformed them into more of a hardware company?
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Name a good piece of software of similar power
    - FpUser 7y ago
      What software are you talking about? If it is the whole OS then it is a matter of user's preference and telling Mac user that PC is better and the other way around is the best way to heat air without any useful outcome.
  - jsjohnst 7y ago
    > Historically I've heard Apple described as a software company that uses hardware to achieve competitive advantage. I’ve always heard it as the exact opposite, hardware company that uses software to achieve competitive advantage. If you look at what they actually “sell”, the version I’ve heard makes much more sense.