On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 08:47:15PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 18:39 +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:16:12PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 18:12 +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > I do not think anybody is preventing that, it is just that we do > > not > > > > see the reason for adding a DMI quirk to the mainline kernel to > > enable > > > > a platform with broken firmware that cripples one of the main > > feature > > > > it is supposed to implement, we can go on forever about this but > > that's > > > > the gist. > > > > > > The quirk turns off a broken feature on the platform where it is > > > broken, not everywhere, there's no "crippling" of the feature. > > > > > > Or are you suggesting that you have in mind a way to fix this which > > > makes HEST work even on m400 and renders the quirk unnecessary? > > > > HEST error reporting is broken on those platforms and it is one > > of the main features we expect from FW in ACPI systems, that > > glossing over the legacy nature of m400 platforms. > > > > What I do not understand, and Ard pointed that out already, is why we > > should add a DMI quirk to the mainline kernel (that he tried/is trying > > very hard to prevent since ACPI for ARM64 was merged) to enable a legacy > > platform with missing/broken (HEST) key FW functionality in a > > distribution. > > > > If we answer that question we can merge this series but I see no > > compelling reason for the time being. > > These systems still exist in the real world and enabling HEST in the > (generic) kernel configuration causes a regression on those systems. > > The advice from upstream Linux maintainers for many years has been for > distros to remain as close as possible to upstream and to take stable > updates early and often. Telling distros to carry patches because a > platform is no longer produced seems to me to be completely counter to > that. > > Is it the policy now that users of a platform should no longer upgrade > their kernels once the manufacturer has decided the platform is EOL, or > shortly after when the kernel decides it is no longer worth supporting? I do not think it is an argument as clean-cut as you may want it to appear. We are talking about one of (if not "the") earliest ACPI platforms on ARM64 with all the implications on FW that this may have. We already had to add horrible quirks (PCI) for people to use it. We are telling you that it would be preferable to avoid taking quirks for this platform given its legacy nature and EOL FW, at least not DMI based quirks. You are referring to the process in general, I am referring to a specific platform with its ACPI support in mind that caused all sort of issues from an upstream point of view. Ard provided an alternative to this patch series since he has good reasons not to want it in the mainline kernel, we understand your point but I think it is time for you and others to understand ours too. Thanks, Lorenzo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
