[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAVeFu+Eca6WGEL02nYskNQfB9=36_faZyGnQeSRrQEiXZx25A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:38:15 +0900
From: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ARM: firmware: enable Trusted Foundations by default
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
> On 01/21/2014 03:10 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> As discussed previously (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/26/289), enable
>> Trusted Foundation support by default since it already depends on a
>> supporting architecture being selected.
>>
>> Doing so allows us to remove it from tegra_defconfig.
>
>> arch/arm/configs/tegra_defconfig | 1 -
>> arch/arm/firmware/Kconfig | 1 +
>
> Can we split out the defconfig and code changes into separate patches?
> They need to go through seperate branches, possibly even separate repos.
>
> The defconfig change might not even be necessary; at some point I'll
> just rebuild it via "make tegra_defconfig; make savedefconfig" on top of
> some linux-next that includes the Kconfig change, and it'll happen
> automatically. Still, I guess there's no harm explicitly sending the patch.
If we can do without the defconfig change then I will just omit it in
the next version - I don't like sending too many oneliners. :P
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists