[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170829100241.GB3101@ubuntu>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:02:41 +0200
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Shiraz Hashim <shashim@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
robdclark@...il.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/8] drivers: boot_constraint: Add
boot_constraints_disable kernel parameter
On 29-08-17, 08:37, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:53:43PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > + boot_constraints_disable
> > + Do not set any boot constraints for devices.
>
> Shouldn't that be the default? As really, that is what the situation is
> today, why force everyone to always enable the disable value? And
> enabling a value to disable something is usually a sign of bad naming...
I will explain once again how it is getting used and then will do whatever you
suggest.
- Platforms that don't need boot constraints should not enable the CONFIG in the
first place. Though we use the same kernel image on multiple hardware types
many times.
- If a platform doesn't have a platform-specific driver that adds constraints at
boot, then the boot constraint core wouldn't get into picture at all and it is
as good as being disabled.
- And the above boot-argument (boot_constraints_disable) is used ONLY in the
case where the platform driver is adding boot constraints at runtime.
So, the boot-constraints are disabled by default for everyone even if the
configuration is enabled. And that's why I named it the way it is right now.
Do you still feel that it needs to be renamed?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists