linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: enable EEPROM

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]

Message-ID: <CAOesGMhSic4k3K6oSxf+GMWVFZvvJYE4aZpmzS29qZLwakvLsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:04:34 -0700
From:   Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:     Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>
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

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Scott Branden
<scott.branden@...adcom.com> wrote:
> 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?

There's no place for them upstream. Maintain locally or in a separate repo.


-Olof