linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] arm64: defconfig: Enable interconnect for imx8mq

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJKOXPc6BEw3A+pO9HOK4h59jZ2_TEfKcz79f7PbkPhJdPhE_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:23:34 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@...i.sm>
Cc:     Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@...aro.org>, robh@...nel.org,
        shawnguo@...nel.org, festevam@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will@...nel.org, cdleonard@...il.com, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-imx@....com, kernel@...i.sm, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] arm64: defconfig: Enable interconnect for imx8mq

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 13:30, Martin Kepplinger
<martin.kepplinger@...i.sm> wrote:
> >>>>> -CONFIG_INTERCONNECT=y
> >>>>
> >>>> Why are you removing this line?
> >>>
> >>> savedefconfig removes it. INTERCONNECT_IMX below depends on it.
> >>
> >> It's save to remove it as other Interconnect options are directly
> >> dependant.
> >
> > Ugh, my bad, it is not allowed to remove it. My review was too fast.
> > INTERCONNECT_IMX depends on it, so the INTERCONNECT must stay,
> >
> > It is selected by TEGRA_MC which is independent here, so you should keep it.
> >
>
> thanks for reviewing! Just to be clear: We're talking about defconfig,
> so if I keep INTERCONNECT that means that I do `make savedefconfig`
> which removes it (it's of course still enabled, just redundant in
> defconfig output), and then *manually* add INTERCONNECT. That would
> indicate that there's a Kconfig bug.

I don't get the point. You should not send the savedefconfig output as
is, without any adjustments and checks. You can run savedefconfig
because it nicely puts your entries in the proper place, but it's not
a bug  that it removes features which we *want to keep*. Where is a
bug in Kconfig?

Best regards,
Krzysztof