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

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> Hi Lee,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:29 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org> 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