linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Extend multi_v7

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, 20 Jun 2013 10:02:01 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	monstr@...str.eu
Cc:	Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Josh Cartwright <josh.cartwright@...com>,
	Tony Prisk <linux@...sktech.co.nz>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Extend multi_v7_defconfig

On Thursday 20 June 2013, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 06/19/2013 08:46 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 June 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> >> I don't know how much a defconfig is supposed to provide, hence as RFC.
> >> This patches are needed for booting Zynq into a minimum ramfs based
> >> system with a serial console.
> > 
> > In my opinion we should provide enable all the platform specific drivers
> > in the defconfigs, as well as everything needed to boot the system,
> > to get proper compile coverage as well as the ability to test changes
> > easily. Your patches look good. Michal, would you apply them and
> > send another pull request or should I just take them directly?
> 
> Soren asked me 2 days ago if make sense to create zynq defconfig or not.
> I just suggested him to better extend this multi_v7_defconfig.
> But still question is if we can/should create zynq specific defconfig?
> Or are you going to remove all of these platform specific defconfig?

We don't have a consistent policy across platforms at the moment.
Traditionally we had multiple defconfigs per platform, in some cases
one per board, but moving towards one defconfig per platform at
the moment.

I guess whether or not to have a separate defconfig for one platform
or to use only multi_*_defconfig is a question of how many people
would use a zynq_defconfig in practice.

> Definitely agree that multi_v7 defconfig should enable everything needed
> to boot the system.
> Does it also mean that we should also enable all zynq drivers
> to get better compile coverage?

I would say yes.

My feeling is that multi_v7_defconfig should enable all hardware
support for the platforms in it, and that users would take it
as a starting point if they want to have a configuration for
an embedded system, disabling everything they don't need.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/