[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <207706e2-8fd4-748f-2ee7-3c372b447a7d@broadcom.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:24:31 -0700
From: Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: enable EEPROM_AT25 config option
Hi Olof,
On 16-10-17 02:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Scott Branden
> <scott.branden@...adcom.com> wrote:
>> Enable support for on board SPI EEPROM by turning on
>> CONFIG_EEPROM_AT25. This needs to be on in order to
>> boot and test the kernel with a static rootfs image
>> that is not rebuilt everytime the kernel is rebuilt.
>
> If we did this for every kernel option we'd get a huge kernel.
>
> In general, we've said that static options for what's needed to boot
> to rootfs (i.e. storage and network drivers for nfsroot) are fine to
> enable statically.
>
> I doubt you need the EEPROM driver to boot to rootfs on your system,
> so please enable it as a module instead.
>
> Look into using config fragments in case you need to modify the
> options for local builds, it should be a convenient way to have a
> small delta to apply to fit your internal needs, instead of completely
> forking the config file.
Do you allow such config fragments to be upstreamed or do we need to
maintain these in our tree?
>
>
> -Olof
>
Thanks,
Scott
Powered by blists - more mailing lists