On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 8:15 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 29/09/2021 21:48, Will McVicker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 6:02 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> What is more, it seems you entirely ignored Geert's comments. I pointed
> > >> attention to it last time and you just said you will send v2 instead of
> > >> joining discussion.
> > >>
> > >> It's a NAK for this reason - ignoring what Geert brought: you just broke
> > >> distro configs for Exynos.
> > >
> > > First off I did want to chime into the discussion from the previous
> > > patchset, but I felt that Lee and Saravana addressed all your concerns
> > > regarding the intent and feasibility. You also made it clear what the
> > > next steps were that I needed to take.
> >
> > One of the steps was problem with distros using everything as modules.
> > They should not receive these drivers as modules.
> > Reminder: these are essential drivers and all Exynos platforms must have
> > them as built-in (at least till someone really tests this on multiple
> > setups).
>
> Agreed. I absolutely love the work of the GKI developers to turn more
> drivers into loadable modules, but the "correctness-first" principle is
> not up for negotiation. If you are uncomfortable with the code or the
> amount of testing because you think it breaks something, you should
> reject the patches. Moving core platform functionality is fundamentally
> hard and it can go wrong in all possible ways where it used to work
> by accident because the init order was fixed.
>
> > >> Please also explain why Exynos is so special that we deviate from the
> > >> policy for all SoC that critical SoC-related drivers have to be enabled
> > >> (built-in or as module).
> > >
> > > I am not actually changing ANY default build configurations here and
> > > I'm not removing any existing configuration.
> >
> > You are changing not default, but selectability which is part of the
> > enforced configuration to make platforms working. The distros do not
> > always choose defaults but rather all as modules. Kernel configuration
> > is huge and complex, so by mistake they could now even disable
> > potentially essential driver. There is no need to disable for example
> > essential clock driver on a supported Exynos platform.
>
> I'm not overly worried about the defaults. If the drivers work as loadable
> modules, I'm happy with them being loadable modules in distros.
> If they don't work this way, then the patches are broken and should
> not get merged.
>
> I don't even mind having essential drivers that can be turned off,
> since we already have a ton of those (e.g. serial ports on most platforms).
> It's up to distros to know which drivers to enable, though having
> either reasonable defaults or fail-safe Kconfig dependencies (e.g.
> making it impossible to turn off but allowing modules) is clearly
> best.
>
> > > I tried to make it pretty
> > > clear in my original patch series commit messages that none of my
> > > changes modify the default behavior. The .config is the same with and
> > > without my patches. All of these drivers remain enabled as built-in.
> > > So if there is a distro that requires all of these drivers to be
> > > built-in, then they can continue as is without noticing any
> > > difference. IOW, all of these changes are/should be backwards
> > > compatible.
> >
> > I was not referring to default neither to backwards compatibility.
> > Please explain why Exynos is special that it does not require essential
> > drivers to be selected as built-in. For example why aren't same changes
> > done for Renesas?
> >
> > Is that now a new global approach that all SoC drivers should be allowed
> > to be disabled for ARCH_XXX?
>
> I wouldn't enforce it either way across platforms. I would prefer drivers
> to be loadable modules where possible (and tested), rather than
> selected by the platform Kconfig. If you want to ensure the exynos
> drivers are impossible to turn into a nonworking state, that's up to you.
>
> > > You said that upstream supports a generic
> > > kernel, but I argue that the upstream "generic" arm64 kernel can't be
> > > considered generic if it builds in SoC specific drivers that can be
> > > modules.
> >
> > Good point, but since having them as modules was not tested, I consider
> > it as theoretical topic.
>
> I actually disagree strongly with labelling the kernel as "non-generic"
> just because it requires platform specific support to be built-in rather than
> a loadable module. This has never been possible on any platform
> I'm aware of, and likely never will, except for minor variations of
> an existing platform.
>
> Look at x86 as an example: there are less than a dozen SoC platforms
> supported and they are incredibly similar hardware-wise, but the kernel
> is anything but "generic" in the sense that was mentioned above.
> Most of the platform specific drivers in arch/x86/platform and the
> corresponding bits in drivers/{irqchip,clocksource,iommu} are always
> built-in, and a lot more is hardwired in architecture code as PCI
> quirks or conditional on cpuid or dmi firmware checks.
>
> > >> Even if there was, I think it is good to have dependencies like
> > >> ARCH_EXYNOS, as they let us partition the (19000, as Arnd said recently)
> > >> Kconfig symbols into better manageable groups. Without these, we cannot
> > >> do better than "depends on ARM || ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST".
> > >
> > > My patch series still keeps the dependencies on ARCH_EXYNOS. I am
> > > totally fine with "depends on ARCH_EXYNOS" and totally fine with
> > > "default ARCH_EXYNOS". The problem we have is that ARCH_EXYNOS
> > > forcefully selects SoC specific drivers to be built-in because it just
> > > adds more and more SoC-specific drivers to a generic kernel.
> >
> > The selected drivers are essential for supported platforms. We don't
> > even know what are these unsupported, downstream platforms you want
> > customize kernel for. They cannot be audited, cannot be compared.
> >
> > Therefore I don't agree with calling it a "problem" that we select
> > *necessary* drivers for supported platforms. It's by design - supported
> > platforms should receive them without ability to remove.
> >
> > If you want to change it, let me paste from previous discussion:
> >
> > Affecting upstream platforms just because vendor/downstream does not
> > want to mainline some code is unacceptable. Please upstream your drivers
> > and DTS.
>
> Agreed. I understand that it would be convenient for SoC vendors to
> never have to upstream their platform code again, and that Android
> would benefit from this in the short run.
>
> From my upstream perspective, this is absolutely a non-goal. If it becomes
> easier as a side-effect of making the kernel more modular, that's fine.
> The actual goal should be to get more people to contribute upstream so
> devices run code that has been reviewed and integrated into new kernels.
>
> > > I know you are asking for me to only push changes that have proven to
> > > work.
> >
> > Yep, tested.
>
> I'm generally fine with "obviously correct" ones as well, but it's up to
> you to categorize them ;-)
Arnd,
FWIW, I agree with all of your points.
Krzysztof,
It sounds like a lack of testing is your main concern.
How can I help here? What H/W do I need to be able to fully test this?
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
