On 23/09/2021 18:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 23/09/2021 16:18, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

quoted

Thanks Lee, you described the use case. In general I like it and support
it, except for what I wrote in the other mail.

Vendor does not contribute much therefore there is no balance in
upstreaming. Since none of other vendor's platforms are supported, I am
looking only at what is supported. From that perspective - the change
proposed by Will and previous guys, does not have much sense.

My perspective probably would change a lot if vendor did contribute some
of its non-edge platforms (3-5 years old)... especially that unlike few
community guys (e.g. PostmarketOS), vendor has shit-tons of money and
the hardware manuals. :)

But no incentive to upstream code old (dead) platforms that they no
longer make money from.  We're not talking about kind-hearted
individuals here.  These are business entities.

What is the business incentive to put hundreds of thousands of dollars
into something with no RoI?

Before you mentioned business entities refrain from upstreaming recent
hardware. You question upstreaming not that recent, so basically
business entity will claim it has zero incentives working with upstream.

Uh, this looks unparseable, I lost some words. Let me write again that part:

Before you mentioned business entities refrain from upstreaming recent
hardware. You question now upstreaming not that recent hardware, so
basically business entity has no incentives to work at all with upstream
on any platform. Neither newest, nor slightly older.

Actually there are incentives for both cases - better code quality for
the pieces being base for future devices, selling mainline supported
hardware to other businesses, eventually less work for themselves around
keeping code in sync with mainline. All these are of course difficult to
measure from business perspective.

quoted

quoted

Instead of pushing this change, please let's give some incentive to the
vendor for upstreaming anything.

Again, you're being specific.  We would also like/need to make the
same kinds of changes to other vendor configurations.  One's which do
contribute significantly at their own cost.

Yes, I am specific because we talk here about specfic Kconfig changes
for one specific ARM sub-architecture. Same set of changes can be
applied to other SoCs and usually have more sense there because number
of upstream platforms is bigger.

If you have 10 different pinctrl drivers, you might decide to narrow the
defconfigs to subset of it. If you have 2-3, the extra complexity does
not matter and you just enable all of them. That's also decision we made
few years ago internally in Samsung.

quoted

The technical reasoning cannot be different because you do or don't
like the way the company operates.  Try to detach a little from
your feelings during discussions which should be purely technical.

I mentioned the less-contributing vendor arguments because you said:

quoted

quoted

Vendors are not able to upstream all functionality right away

That's the side-topic in this discussion.

Technically, all supported Exynos platforms require selecting
ARCH_EXYNOS and require all drivers selected by ARCH_EXYNOS. If you
mention some unsupported out-of-tree platforms, which I cannot
audit/see/use, it is not a valid reason to change statement above. Make
them supported, available to audit and check and statement above stops
being valid.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Best regards,
Krzysztof

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel