linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 15/23] arm: use kconfig fragments for ARCH

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: <87a8c415hs.fsf@belgarion.home>
Date:   Sat, 10 Dec 2016 10:46:23 +0100
From:   Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
To:     Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
        Cyril Bur <cyrilbur@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 15/23] arm: use kconfig fragments for ARCH_PXA defconfigs (part 1)

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com> writes:

> Replace [lpd270,lubbock,mainstone,pxa255-idp]_defconfig-s with
> a Makefile target using merge_config.
>
> The patch was verified with doing:
>
>     $ make [lpd270,...]_defconfig
>     $ make savedefconfig
>
> and comparing resulting defconfig files (before/after the patch).
>
> Cc: Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
> Cc: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>
> Cc: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
> Cc: Cyril Bur <cyrilbur@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>

Hi Bartolomiej,

It's a bit hard to judge without any context for me, especially I'm receiving
patches 11 to 21 but not the others. I suppose the advantage of defconfig
fragments was already discussed somewhere, could you point me to that please ?

One small thing that could be improved is the "pxa_basic*" names.

I think pxa_basic1 is "pxa_refboards" or something like that, as these are the
initial reference designs as far as I know from Intel and validation vehicles
rather that form factors.

In the same way, pxa_basic2 is rather "pxa_sharpsl" as these are sharp designs.

And pxa_basic3 looks like Motorola platforms, so "pxa_motorola" perhaps ?

I noticed imote2.config ended up based on pxa_basic3, while I would have
expected it to be based on pxa_basic1 as it looks like a reference board to me
...

Cheers.

--
Robert