linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Increase the max granular size"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:27:16 +0000
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@...il.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	rrichter@...ium.com, tchalamarla@...ium.com, apinski@...ium.com,
	Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Increase the max granular size"

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:26:08AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >Why do you need your own defconfig? If it's just on the short term until
> >all your code is upstream, that's fine, but this goes against the single
> >Image aim. I would like defconfig to cover all supported SoCs (and yes,
> >ACPI on by default once we deem it !EXPERT anymore), though at some
> >point we may need a server/mobile split (if the generated image is too
> >large, maybe more stuff being built as modules).
> 
> Yes, that's exactly it.  Ours is an ACPI system, and so we have to have our
> own defconfig for now.  We're holding off on pushing our own defconfig
> changes (enabling drivers, etc) until ACPI is enabled in
> arch/arm64/configs/defconfig.

Is there anything that prevents you from providing a dtb/dts for this
SoC?

-- 
Catalin