Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] clocksource/drivers/exynos_mct_v2: introduce Exynos MCT version 2 driver for next Exynos SoC

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
To: Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@samsung.com>
Cc: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, pullip.cho@samsung.com,
	hoony.yu@samsung.com, hajun.sung@samsung.com,
	myung-su.cha@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] clocksource/drivers/exynos_mct_v2: introduce Exynos MCT version 2 driver for next Exynos SoC
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:10:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <91e926c4-9a3a-196d-1451-d3e7d38fc132@canonical.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211026014732.GA45525@perf>

On 26/10/2021 03:47, Youngmin Nam wrote:
>> If everyone added a new driver to avoid integrating with existing code,
>> we would have huge kernel with thousands of duplicated solutions. The
>> kernel also would be unmaintained.
>>
>> Such arguments were brought before several times - "I don't want to
>> integrating with existing code", "My use case is different", "I would
>> need to test the other cases", "It's complicated for me".
>>
>> Instead of pushing a new vendor driver you should integrate it with
>> existing code.
>>
> Let me ask you one question.
> If we maintain as one driver, how can people who don't have the new MCT test the new driver?

I assume you talk about a case when someone else later changes something
in the driver. Such person doesn't necessarily have to test it. The same
as in all other cases (Exynos MCT is not special here): just ask for
testing on platform one doesn't have.

Even if you submit this as separate driver, there is the exact same
problem. People will change the MCTv2 driver without access to hardware.

None of these differ for Exynos MCT from other drivers, e.g. mentioned
Samsung PMIC drivers, recently modified (by Will and Sam) the SoC clock
drivers or the ChipID drivers (changed by Chanho).

Best regards,
Krzysztof