[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOesGMjLOhCBX1K_A_BB8TcMr3Ki5jagvPvxiihdJVXZ1LLmpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:48:26 -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 Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Scott Branden
<scott.branden@...adcom.com> wrote:
> Hi Olof,
>
> On 16-10-17 05:04 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> OK, I will upstream as module and need config fragments maintained locally
> in order to test defconfig on our test setup.
Great.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> If that is the case - shall we cleanup arch/arm/configs and delete
> dram_0x00000000.config that was introduced in the 4.4 kernel?
That one is a bit different, in that it allows us to do defconfig
consolidation, and as such keeps the number of defconfigs needed down.
In particular, see the email from Arnd here:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=145700132713703
-Olof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists