Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] arm64: Kconfig: Update ARCH_EXYNOS select configs

[Will McVicker <willmcvicker@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 10:36 PM Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 10:24 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:52 PM Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:48 PM Will McVicker <willmcvicker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 6:02 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29/09/2021 01:56, Will McVicker wrote:
> > > > > > This is v2 of the series of patches that modularizes a number of core
> > > > > > ARCH_EXYNOS drivers. Based off of the feedback from the v1 series, I have
> > > > > > modularized all of the drivers that are removed from the ARCH_EXYNOS
> > > > > > series of "select XXX". This includes setting the following configs as
> > > > > > tristate:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  * COMMON_CLK_SAMSUNG
> > > > > >  * EXYNOS_ARM64_COMMON_CLK
> > > > > >  * PINCTRL_SAMSUNG
> > > > > >  * PINCTRL_EXYNOS
> > > > > >  * EXYNOS_PMU_ARM64
> > > > > >  * EXYNOS_PM_DOMAINS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Additionally, it introduces the config EXYNOS_PMU_ARM64 and EXYNOS_PMU_ARM
> > > > > > which was previously EXYNOS_PMU and EXYNOS_PMU_ARM_DRIVERS respectively.
> > > > > > The reason for these new configs is because we are not able to easily
> > > > > > modularize the ARMv7 PMU driver due to built-in arch dependencies on
> > > > > > pmu_base_addr under arch/arm/mach-exynos/*. So the new configs split up
> > > > > > the ARM and ARM64 portions into two separate configs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Overall, these drivers didn't require much refactoring and converted to
> > > > > > modules relatively easily. However, due to my lack of exynos hardware, I
> > > > > > was not able to boot test these changes. I'm mostly concerned about the
> > > > > > CLK_OF_DECLARE() changes having dependencies on early timers. So I'm
> > > > > > requesting help for testing these changes on the respective hardware.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > These are all not tested at all? In such case, since these are not
> > > > > trivial changes, please mark the series as RFT.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will not be able to test these for some days, so it must wait.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Krzysztof
> > > >
> > > > +Cc Arnd and Olof,
> > > >
> > > > Hi Krzysztof,
> > > >
> > > > To avoid the scrambled conversation from the first patchset, I'm going
> > > > to address all your general questions here in the cover letter thread
> > > > so that it's easier for everyone to follow and reference in the
> > > > future.
> > >
> > > This patchset shouldn't go in.
> > >
> > > GKI is a fantastic effort, since it finally seems like Google has the
> > > backbone to put pressure on the vendors to upstream all their stuff.
> > >
> > > This patcheset dilutes and undermines all of that by opening up a
> > > truck-size loophole, reducing the impact of GKI, and overall removes
> > > leverage to get vendors to do the right thing.
> > >
> > > It's against our interest as a community to have this happen, since
> > > there's no other reasonably justifiable reason to do this.

Are you saying that modularizing drivers is opening up a loophole? How
is this different from Krysztof pushing changes to modularize the
Exynos ChipId driver just last week [1].  I understand the push back
on "these aren't tested yet" and I agree that we should not merge them
until they are (I've re-iterated that multiple times and have
requested for testing help multiple times since I can't get my hands
on any Exynos arm64 hardware), but are you saying that if I gather the
test data to prove that these drivers can actually be made into
modules that you will still deny them out of the interest of the
community?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/4aee1b0d-91a1-75ac-d2b7-6dab3d7a301f@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t

--Will

>
> >
> > Oolf, Geert, Krzysztof, Arnd,
>
> So close.
>
> > I skimmed through the emails and you all make a lot of good points.
>
> I skimmed through this email and I think it adds a lot of new
> complexity and fragility to solve a problem that doesn't really exist
> for upstream, adding yet more config parameter combinations to build
> and test for.
>
> A much more valuable approach would be to work towards being able to
> free up memory by un-probed drivers at the end of boot. That would
> possibly benefit all platforms on all architectures.
>
>
> -Olof