[linux-cirrus] Re: new Cirrus Logic Linux release
- From: Brian Austin <brian.austin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: linux-cirrus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:40:29 -0500
Since you like to post emails about this communication process I will do the
same.
Brian > I am going to talk to management again about some sort of compensation
> for you, because I believe that you deserve it, and it helps us
greatly.
Lennert - That would be very nice.
If you see the part about "again ask for some sort".
You use the word polite as if you want people to know you were.
Why would you need to do that? Is it not the assumption that you would always
be polite?
Anyway, you were never promised commpensation, I told you I would champion the
idea to management, and they did not want to do so.
After that you just became rude.
you freakin posted a COMPLETE email from one person to another about a possible
business transaction to a public user forum.
And you titled it LOVE LETTERS FROM CIRRUS.
Dude, you are not a nice person and you certainly shot yourself in the foot
with that. Nobody here will ever consider working with you or paying you for
that matter.
So keep on working on our chip port. You do a great job. I'm sure that looks
good on your resume and helps you to earn income.
Brian Austin
P.S. Maybe certain sections of this email will end up in some OSS Zealots
speech as before.
I really dont care. They can take that part too :-) Since you insist on
creating bad PR for the
chip that you maintain. Damn that's funny!
I will not bother with this anymore. I do not have to time.
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 03:25 +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> Someone forwarded this email to me. There are some things that I
> would like to set straight.
>
>
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 04:24:33 -0500, Brian Austin wrote:
>
> > What does "code quality" give you?
> >
> > The issue I have with "mainstream" is that the code changes that would
> > have to be done, do not actually make the chip and kernel any better.
> > The performance of the maintream kernel vs. Cirrus kernel are really
> > that different?
>
> The upstream ep93xx ethernet driver was over 100% faster on very
> common workloads last time I checked.
>
> I did write a polite email to the Cirrus engineer that wrote the Cirrus
> ethernet driver explaining the performance differences and what they
> should change in their version of the driver to get the same performance
> levels, so maybe the performance bugs in the Cirrus driver have been
> fixed in the meanwhile, I don't know.
>
> Anyway, not really relevant to the discussion.
>
>
> > Anyway, It's not that I didnt want to work with Lennert, I did, I
> > sent him free HW and pushed my bosses very hard to work something
> > out, but then the communication broke down from a professional
> > manner to flaming and bad mouthing and posting of private emails
> > on public forums and that really pissed me off, and I dont have
> > time to deal with it.
>
> Let's set some things straight.
>
> All of the initial upstream ep93xx work was done by me without Cirrus
> involvement. After a while, Cirrus approached me (not the other way
> round), telling me that they really appreciated my work and were
> almost certainly going to pay me for it.
>
> Then a couple months later, Cirrus suddenly changed their attitude and
> more or less told me "We're not not going to pay you after all, and
> we're not going to work with you either." This came totally out of
> the blue for me, and wasn't because of anything I did, contrary to
> what Brian is suggesting above.
>
> I forwarded pieces of that email to linux-cirrus@ to let people here
> know where things stood, and to let them know that I was still planning
> to continue to work on ep93xx peripheral support for the upstream kernel.
>
> When doing so, I took great care not to mention the name of the person
> at Cirrus that had sent me that email -- if you re-check the email I
> sent to linux-cirrus@ at the time, you'll see that the name "Brian
> Austin" isn't mentioned anywhere.
>
> Even though Cirrus has undertaken several attempts to destroy my
> reputation by saying and suggesting things that are simply not true,
> I hold no ill will against them, and I would still love to see some
> form of cooperation between them and the upstream Linux kernel
> developers. (Which doesn't have to be me or involve me, if they so
> desire.)
>
>
> > It is instances like that one that keep alot of chip companies from
> > working with kernel maintainers.
>
> I myself have worked with Intel engineers, Marvell engineers and
> Freescale engineers on upstream Linux support for their ARM SoCs.
> (For which two out of those three vendors didn't pay me a dime, BTW,
> before we hear that argument again.) (One did pay me, but the work I
> did on that was only a small part of a larger set of work I did for
> them, most of which not Linux kernel related at all, and besides, I
> wonder why I feel the need to defend myself for this.)
>
> I have not personally worked with Atmel, Texas Instruments or Samsung,
> but there is support for their ARM SoCs in the upstream Linux kernel
> as well.
>
> I don't think Linux kernel maintainers are perfect, but it's certainly
> not all so bad. If Cirrus chooses not to support their ARM SoCs in the
> upstream Linux kernel tree just because they've butted heads with
> someone, then that is of course their right.
>
>
Other related posts:
