On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Lee, > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:29 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > On 30/09/2021 14:39, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > >> On 30/09/2021 11:23, Lee Jones wrote: > > > >>> [0] Full disclosure: part of my role at Linaro is to keep the Android > > > >>> kernel running as close to Mainline as possible and encourage/push the > > > >>> upstream-first mantra, hence my involvement with this and other sets. > > > >>> I assure you all intentions are good and honourable. If you haven't > > > >>> already seen it, please see Todd's most recent update on the goals and > > > >>> status of GKI: > > > >>> > > > >>> Article: https://tinyurl.com/saaen3sp > > > >>> Video: https://youtu.be/O_lCFGinFPM > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Side topic, why this patchset is in your scope or Will's/Google's scope? > > > >> Just drop it from Android main kernel, it will not be your problem. I > > > >> mean, really, you don't need this patchset in your tree at all. The only > > > >> platform which needs it, the only platform which will loose something > > > >> will be one specific vendor. Therefore this will be an incentive for > > > >> them to join both discussions and upstream development. :) > > > > > > > > How would they fix this besides upstreaming support for unreleased > > > > work-in-progress H/W? > > > > > > > > Haven't I explained this several times already? :) > > > > > > Either that way or the same as Will's doing but that's not my question. > > > I understand you flush the queue of your GKI patches to be closer to > > > upstream. Reduce the backlog/burden. you can achieve your goal by simply > > > dropping such patch and making it not your problem. :) > > > > git reset --hard mainline/master # job done - tea break :) > > > > Seriously though, we wish to encourage the use of GKI so all vendors > > can enjoy the benefits of more easily updateable/secure code-bases. > > > > I can't see how pushing back on seamlessly benign changes would > > benefit them or anyone else. > > I like your wording ;-) > > Indeed, seamlessly benign changes, which are (1) not tested, and (2) > some believed by the platform maintainer to break the platform. > What can possibly go wrong? ;-) William has already shown a willingness to test the series. There is already a downstream proof-of-concept of this working. I am hopeful. :) -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
