Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] arm64: Kconfig: Update ARCH_EXYNOS select
 configs
To:     Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc:     Will McVicker <willmcvicker@google.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@android.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
References: <20210928235635.1348330-1-willmcvicker@google.com>
 <7766faf8-2dd1-6525-3b9a-8ba790c29cff@canonical.com>
 <CABYd82YodFDwBxexCv+0hpYrdYEX1Z1CvnRkmnBPkEJNJ4bssQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c65bf0db-6fd1-eb05-f407-37c41f9125f4@canonical.com>
 <YVWCK5QO331rfhJJ@google.com>
 <CA+Ln22EbXKsRFZ=3L4A_jqciRxG2hnAh9iKTfQ_Ypr2NJgDzQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YVWkxnc8wTdBgRsv@google.com>
 <CA+Ln22FBy2ks9gX3df=rQw-6W3iftMVoqsoqBPchGCqDDoMaLg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
Message-ID: <8729f109-93c1-24dc-f7d9-9c83d7ac24dc@canonical.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:15:03 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+Ln22FBy2ks9gX3df=rQw-6W3iftMVoqsoqBPchGCqDDoMaLg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 30/09/2021 14:10, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> 2021年9月30日(木) 20:51 Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>:
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is that the same as exporting symbols to framework APIs?
>>
>> Since this is already a method GKI uses to allow external modules to
>> interact with the core kernel/frameworks.  However, it's not possible
>> to upstream these without an upstream user for each one.
> 
> Not necessary the core frameworks, could also be changing the ways the
> existing drivers register to allow additional drivers to extend the
> functionality rather than completely overwrite them. 

Yes, the first user could be within the kernel after modifying some of
the drivers.

> It's really hard
> to tell what the right way would be without knowing the exact things
> they find missing in the upstream drivers. As for upstream users, this
> is exactly the point - upstream is a bidirectional effort, one takes
> from it and should contribute things back.
> 
> Generally, the subsystems being mentioned here are so basic (clock,
> pinctrl, rtc), that I really can't imagine what kind of rocket science
> one might want to hide for competitive reasons... If it's for an
> entire SoC, I wonder why Intel and AMD don't have similar concerns and
> contribute support for their newest hardware far before the release.

Lee used the argument of not-disclosing-edge-hw but I also don't see
much of it in the case of few drivers needed to be overridden. Just
bunch of registers for the same stuff we have sine 8 years. Rather the
vendor does not want to commit effort towards upstreaming these...


Best regards,
Krzysztof