Subject: RE: [External Mail] Re: [PATCH 00/11] net: wwan: t9xx: Add MediaTek T9XX WWAN driver

From: "Wu. JackBB (GSM)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 08:22:27 +0000

Hi

> let me join the discussion and put my 2c.
>
> On 6/2/26 13:58, Wu. JackBB (GSM) wrote:
> > Hi Jakub,
> >
> > > On Fri, 29 May 2026 18:31:39 +0800 Jack Wu via B4 Relay wrote:
> > > > 43 files changed, 14761 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > Please try to cut this down to ~5kLoC for the initial submission.
> > > Whatever the absolute minimum sensible chunk of code is.
> > >
> > > Each patch must build cleanly with W=1
> >
> > We've already reduced this significantly from the original 41k LoC
> > down to ~14.7k by stripping out non-essential features such as
> > exception handling, memory logging, devlink, statistics, debug
> > tracing, and others.
> >
> > We even removed some arguably necessary features (PM, mdlog,
> > throughput optimizations) that we plan to submit as follow-up
> > series.
>
> Great work. Highly appreciate!
>
> > Note that the line count may slightly increase in v2, as we plan
> > to add missing kdoc comments based on review feedback.
> >
> > For reference, the t7xx driver (two generations older, simpler HW)
> > had an initial submission of ~11.3k LoC [1]. The t9xx hardware is
> > more complex, so we believe being in a similar range is reasonable.
>
> Let me elaborate a bit here. The size problem is not due to a git or a
> mailbox limitation. It arise due to the human limitation. The T7xx
> submission review took something about 4 months and 8 iterations. And it
> was 'only' 11.3k lines. Let's do some extrapolation assuming that
> function is linear. 14.7k is 30% bigger, thus, estimated reviewing time
> should be 5 months and 2 weeks. And this looks optimistic.
>
> Recommendation, shared by Jakub, is practical. 5k lines might be
> reviewed in a reasonable time and merged with the full confidence of the
> quality.
>
> > We'd like to keep the driver functional and reviewable in its
> > current scope. Do you have any suggestions on how we could further
> > reduce the size while maintaining a working initial submission?
>
> Off the top of my head, I would suggest joining T7xx and T9xx code
> bases. It could be done through factoring out a core functionality of
> T7xx into a library, or through making the driver layered.
>
> I am not pretending being an expert in any of these drivers, but
> generally divide-n-conqueror together with code reuse work reliable. As
> an alternative, I could spend a couple of weeks reviewing the new
> submission and will come with more specific ideas on what can be thrown
> away or reused.
>

Thank you for the detailed explanation and the practical suggestions.

We discussed this with MediaTek. The T7XX and T9XX hardware architectures
have diverged significantly, so developing a shared driver would require
substantial effort and risk introducing regressions in the existing T7XX
driver, requiring extensive testing to ensure reliability.

MediaTek also confirmed that the current driver cannot be reduced further
without removing functionality. One option would be to remove the data
plane and power management patches, which would bring the submission down
to approximately 9,000 lines:

[0/7] net: wwan: t9xx: Add MediaTek T9XX WWAN driver
[1/7] net: wwan: t9xx: Add PCIe core
[2/7] net: wwan: t9xx: Add control plane transaction layer
[3/7] net: wwan: t9xx: Add control DMA interface
[4/7] net: wwan: t9xx: Add control port
[5/7] net: wwan: t9xx: Add FSM thread
[6/7] net: wwan: t9xx: Add AT & MBIM WWAN ports
[7/7] net: wwan: t9xx: Add maintainers and documentation

We have verified that the MBIM and AT ports work independently in this
configuration — the control plane is fully functional, just without the
network interface.

That said, we would prefer to continue the review with the current 14.7k
line submission if the community is open to it, as it represents a more
complete and testable driver. We are happy to go either way based on your
preference.

Thanks.
> > [1]
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/[email-masked]/
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > ================================================================================================================================================================
> > This message may contain information which is private, privileged or
> > confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended
> > recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the
> > message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
> > taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or
> > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
> > ================================================================================================================================================================
>
> And this disclaimer does not facilitate the review. Am I 'intended'
> recipient or should I destroy the message ASAP?

Please ignore this message.
Our company's mail server automatically adds this announcement to all external emails.
We apologize for the inconvenience.

Thanks.

================================================================================================================================================================
This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
================================================================================================================================================================