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;
To:     Will McVicker <willmcvicker@google.com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@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>,
        Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.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>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        "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>,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
References: <20210928235635.1348330-1-willmcvicker@google.com>
 <7766faf8-2dd1-6525-3b9a-8ba790c29cff@canonical.com>
 <CABYd82YodFDwBxexCv+0hpYrdYEX1Z1CvnRkmnBPkEJNJ4bssQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOesGMgSt_mYvRzF0rC=fnjMYGO9EX0_Ow2cD1d8XKLD5pHsZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGETcx-b0ea-rqH+fj37sq9SLWY=+ePK94Y6rnLPuNbqFVBWmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOesGMhQ3YsLJeQ7aUfb=0oNa3uPCx42wO1U7-ArqJTAUq1G3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABYd82b7umA2h=b2NTMU7X0u8ABOjMcmh5cHOH_gyWr=QeFFTA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] arm64: Kconfig: Update ARCH_EXYNOS select
 configs
Message-ID: <5d22846b-b2d8-e646-4b5c-732127e37f3a@canonical.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:01:20 +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: <CABYd82b7umA2h=b2NTMU7X0u8ABOjMcmh5cHOH_gyWr=QeFFTA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 01/10/2021 07:59, Will McVicker wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 10:36 PM Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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].  

Modularizing drivers, which can work as modules or even can be disabled
because they are not essential for platform boot, is not opening
loophole and is helping upstream platforms. Modularizing everything,
even essential drivers, because downstream does not want to contribute
rest of its drivers, is not beneficial to the upstream project. Since
downstream does want to contribute its platforms and drivers, it decides
to change mainline project to fits its needs. Only its needs, not others.

I was repeating this multiple times - there is no point, no incentive
for the mainline to allow disabling essential SoC drivers. It's only
downstream interest without any benefit to the upstream.


Best regards,
Krzysztof