Re: [PATCH 12/12] arm64: defconfig: Enable I3C and SPD5118 hwmon

Thierry Reding <[email protected]> Wed, 25 Mar 2026 13:58:29 +0100

Newsgroups	dev.linux.lists.acpica-devel,org.infradead.lists.linux-i3c,org.kernel.vger.linux-acpi,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-hwmon,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-tegra
Message-ID	<acPX-clIX4UfBNdM@orome>

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 12:03:37PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/03/2026 11:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 25/03/2026 11:31, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 06:15:14PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 19/03/2026 18:09, Akhil R wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:40:34 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 10:57:25PM +0530, Akhil R wrote:
> >>>>>> Add I3C subsystem support, DesignWare I3C master controller, and
> >>>>>> SPD5118 hwmon sensor as modules to the defconfig.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why? If there is no user of that, why would we want it? Your commit msg
> >>>>> should explain that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ack. This is for Tegra410 which has a DesignWare I3C host controller.
> >>>> I will add this in the commit message.
> >>>
> >>> Board or products. Not SoCs.
> >>
> >> Is this a new requirement? I see a bit of both in defconfig changes.
> > 
> > Almost every review from me has it for 2-3 years... And it is a known
> 
> And I already explained this to *you* 3 years ago:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> 
> So how this could be a new requirement *now* if three years ago we had
> exactly same discussion.
> 
> I understand question for the first time, but why this being brought up
> as "why is this a new thing" again?

I have to admit I did not remember what we discussed, so I had to go
read that exchange again. It sounds to me like we were not discussing
the specific issue of a missing description as to which particular
product needed this, but you were instead rejecting the idea of
enabling drivers that were not strictly necessary like those for PCI
devices because they were making your life more difficult by building
drivers by default that you were not interested in.

Here you're arguing that you want proof that this is going to be used
by some upstream-supported device, which are two different things,
because they might very well be drivers that you're not interested in
but end up building if documented properly.

So I find it a little hard to keep track of what is acceptable to you
and what isn't. Are you objecting to this on the grounds of it bloating
the kernel build or because you want documentation for what platforms a
driver is being used on?

Our action items will be different depending on what your answer is: if
you want documentation about what device this will be used for, we'll
get you that information. If your concern is that it bloats the build we
drop the patch and will have to ask users to build their own
configurations.

Maybe to avoid these kinds of discussions in the past you can write down
your rules about what should go into defconfig and what should not. And
maybe we can eventually find consensus and find something that people
can use as a reference.

Thierry

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)