Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: Enable HDA INTEL config for ARM64

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 23/01/2023 16:58, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 06:00:25PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 20/01/2023 17:56, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 07:20:01AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 20/01/2023 06:48, Mohan Kumar D wrote:
>>>>> On 18-01-2023 18:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>>>> On 18/01/2023 12:46, Mohan Kumar D wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18-01-2023 13:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 19:16, Mohan Kumar wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Enable CONFIG_SND_HDA_INTEL for NVIDIA PCI based graphics sound card for
>>>>>>>>> ARM64 based platforms as Intel PCI driver was used for registering the
>>>>>>>>> sound card.
>>>>>>>> It's not a part of SoC, not a common device used during debugging or
>>>>>>>> development, so I don't think it is reasonable to enable it. We do not
>>>>>>>> enable driver just because someone uses them. Otherwise please clarify
>>>>>>>> which board has this device embedded (not pluggable by user, but embedded).
>>>>>>> This change is required for enabling HDA sound registration for Nvidia
>>>>>>> discrete GPU cards based on PCI and pluggable to Nvidia Jetson Platforms.
>>>>>> You can plug anything to PCI slot and we do not enable every such PCI
>>>>>> adapter.
>>>>> Without this config enabled, the Intel hda audio driver won't be built 
>>>>> and dGPU won't be able to register sound card. Do you have any 
>>>>> suggestion here?
>>>>
>>>> Without hundreds of other drivers they also won't be built and won't be
>>>> usable. Anyway, this is just defconfig, so it does not matter. You can
>>>> always enable it in your setup, why is this a problem?
>>>>
>>>> Again, we do not enable drivers for every PCI card.
>>>
>>> I don't think we have any set rules for what goes in a defconfig. If one
>>> has a real use-case, we tend to enable stuff in defconfig, especially if
>>> it's a module.
>>
>> There will be always an use case for every PCI and USB card. It's not
>> related to storage or networking which could justify device bringup
>> (rootfs). It's really not needed for any board operation. defconfig is
>> not for marketing products but for our development and reference platforms.
> 
> If defconfig were only for boot-critical drivers, it's terribly bloated

We enable drivers for devices present in our platforms. Everything which
is on such platforms. For pluggable USB/PCI/whatever third-party
devices, then comes the argument as boot-related.

> as it is. We enable things like multimedia, infrared and audio. None of
> those are critical to booting a system. Heck, we also enable most of
> DRM/KMS, which are useful for boot on consumer devices, but are rarely
> critical on development and reference platforms.
> 
> Besides, a PCI board can be considered a development platform depending
> on who you are.
> 
> I've always looked at defconfig as more of a guideline as to what's a
> useful baseline configuration for an architecture.

Yep and this one here is nowhere near that architecture. It's pluggable
card, not related to hardware nor arm64 (If I understood correctly). Why
you do not enable it on x86? Or multi_v7? or hundreds of other defconfigs?

> 
>> The only argument behind this change is "I have a PCI card and I want it
>> in defconfig", but why it has to be in defconfig in the first place?
>> There is no reason. This is not distro...
> 
> That's highly subjective and honestly that argument can go in both
> directions. People can, after all, start from an allnoconfig and then
> work their way up to something that's usable on their particular device.
> Or they could start from an allmodconfig and work their way down.

I am sorry, but adding new stuff does not require arguments against.
Adding new stuff requires argument for it. You reverse the argumentation
that I need to find proves that we do not need it in mainline platforms,
if I got your response correctly.

> 
> The point of defconfig is to give you something that's somewhere between
> the two extremes. Obviously if we start enabling everything, it defeats
> that purpose. If we prohibit the enablement of new options, we equally
> limit its usefulness.

I don't think we discuss the same thing. There are no extremes here at
all. The patch is about enabling arm64-unrelated PCI pluggable device,
just because it came from @nvidia.com author. If you think some PCI
pluggable 3rd party device is suitable for defconfig, I will bring
hundreds of other drivers I am also plugging over PCI to my boards, just
because I want some audio.

It's not reasonable path...

Best regards,
Krzysztof