Thread (83 messages) 83 messages, 14 authors, 2021-10-08

Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] arm64: Kconfig: Update ARCH_EXYNOS select configs

From: Lee Jones <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-30 16:21:54
Also in: linux-clk, linux-gpio, linux-rtc, linux-samsung-soc, lkml

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Lee,

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:29 PM Lee Jones [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
quoted
On 30/09/2021 14:39, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
quoted
On 30/09/2021 11:23, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted
[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

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help