Hi Lee,
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 12:56 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:23 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I've taken the liberty of cherry-picking some of the points you have
> > > reiteratted a few times. Hopefully I can help to address them
> > > adequently.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > 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).
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > > The selected drivers are essential for supported platforms.
> > >
> > > SoC specific drivers are only essential/necessary/required in
> > > images designed to execute solely on a platform that requires them.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because without them the image wouldn't functional on any level.
>
> But you're right, there is still no requirement for it to be built-in.
>
> > > For a kernel image which is designed to be generic i.e. one that has
> > > the ability to boot on vast array of platforms, the drivers simply
> > > have to be *available*.
> >
> > If the drivers are really essential/necessary/required, this precludes
> > running the generic kernel image on the platform that requires them,
> > making the kernel not sufficiently generic.
>
> If they are not at all present, then yes. However that is not what is
> being suggested. The essential functionality will be provided. Just
> not built-in.
I really meant "essential/necessary/required to be built-in".
> > > Forcing all H/W drivers that are only *potentially* utilised on *some*
> > > platforms as core binary built-ins doesn't make any technical sense.
> > > The two most important issues this causes are image size and a lack of
> > > configurability/flexibility relating to real-world application i.e.
> > > the one issue we already agreed upon; H/W or features that are too
> > > new (pre-release).
> >
> > True, if "potentially". If not potentially, they must be included.
>
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Would you mind elaborating?
It was a comment to your "*potentially* utilised on *some* platforms".
It is clear they are not used on the other ("not *some*") platforms, but your
sentence was unclear whether they are always or only sometimes used on
"*some*" platforms.
"always" => "not potentially"
"sometimes" => "potentially".
I hope this makes it more clear.
> > > Bloating a generic kernel with potentially hundreds of unnecessary
> > > drivers that will never be executed in the vast majority of instances
> > > doesn't achieve anything. If we have a kernel image that has the
> > > ability to boot on 10's of architectures which have 10's of platforms
> > > each, that's a whole host of unused/wasted executable space.
> >
> > The key here is if the driver is required or not to use the platform,
> > and why it is required. If the requirement comes from some deficiency
> > in the kernel code or config system, it should be fixed, if possible.
> > And the fix should be tested.
> > If it cannot be fixed, the driver should be included, else it would
> > preclude running the generic kernel on the affected platform.
>
> Sorry, I'm not following.
It all depends on why the driver is "required to be built-in".
Depending on the reason behind that requirement, the driver can be
changed from built-in to modular without ill effects on functionality.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
