Re: [PATCH RFC v3 0/7] mfd: ls2kbmc: multiple fixes for this driver

Hi,

> 2026=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=8831=E6=97=A5 16:07=EF=BC=8CHuacai Chen =
<[email protected]> =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>=20
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 5:28=E2=80=AFPM Miao Wang =
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>=20
>> Hi,
>>=20
>>> 2026=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=8824=E6=97=A5 16:55=EF=BC=8CHuacai Chen =
<[email protected]> =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>>>=20
>>> Hi, Miao,
>>>=20
>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 1:24=E2=80=AFAM Miao Wang via B4 Relay
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Previously, the driver has been introduced to support the Loongson =
2K
>>>> BMC running on the Loongson Servers, which is essential to prevent
>>>> the system from hanging when the BMC is being reset and the default
>>>> efi-framebuffer is being used. However, there are some drawbacks in =
the
>>>> driver.
>>>>=20
>>>> Firstly, the driver tries to read and write to the connected PCI-E =
host
>>>> controller registers, assuming that the BMC is connected to LS7A =
PCI-E
>>>> host controller. This assumption should be true for real products, =
but
>>>> to prevent from accidentally reading and writing to the wrong PCI-E =
host
>>>> controller, this driver should be modified to check this before
>>>> accessing the registers.
>>>>=20
>>>> Secondly, the driver uses non-exported functions to tell the vt
>>>> subsystem to redraw the screen, preventing the driver from being
>>>> compiling as a module. This can be fixed by using the exported
>>>> functions instead.
>>> You can replace the redraw function, but I don't think it is =
necessary
>>> to make the bmc driver modular.
>>>=20
>>> BMC core, IPMI and simpledrm display are usually (if not always)
>>> supposed to work as early as possible.
>>=20
>> I believe that it should be the user's decision to choose whether to
>> compile a module into the kernel or as a module and it would be =
better
>> if we can provide the possibilities for the user to choose from.
>> Additionally, I don't think these modules are supposed to work that
>> early. The mfd module provide two functions, the display and the ipmi
>> device. In the aspect of graphical display, without this module, the
>> user can still see the output during booting on their monitors, since
>> efifb is working, providing a basic display function. In the aspect =
of
>> the ipmi device, I don't think the lack of such device will influence
>> the boot of the system, since it is a common practice to compile ipmi
>> device drivers as modules on other architectures. As a result, =
neither
>> of the two functions are required to be loaded that early and it is
>> reasonable to at lease leave the choice to compile it as a module
>> to the user.
> Flexibility is not always useful, if a config doesn't provide good
> effect, then it just increases complexity and makes maintenance more
> difficult.

I should emphasize that to allow this driver to be a module, there is
no such increase on maintenance. Moreover, not all loongarch machines
are requiring this driver. Especially only a part of the server models
are quipped with this BMC. Comparing with other architectures, the
driver for BMC are normally compiled as a module, such as mgag200 for
iLO from HPE and iDRAC from DELL, hibmc_drm for Kunpeng server from
Huawei. None of these BMC drivers requiring to be compiled into the
kernel. I cannot see there is any reason keeping the driver from being
allowed to be compiled as a module. I also do not think it will bring
any significant maintenance burden. Implementing correct cleanup code
should be necessary instead of burden.

Cheers,

Miao Wang