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  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]
Date:   Sun, 17 Jan 2021 17:36:33 -0800
From:   Alistair Francis <>
To:     Olof Johansson <>
Cc:     Alistair Francis <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Shawn Guo <>,
        Sascha Hauer <>,
        Sascha Hauer <>,
        Fabio Estevam <>,
        dl-linux-imx <>,
        Linux ARM Mailing List <>,
        DTML <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] remarkable2_defconfig: Add initial support for the reMarkable2

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:30 PM Olof Johansson <> wrote:
> Hi Alistair,
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 3:09 PM Alistair Francis <> wrote:
> >
> > This defconfig is based on the one released by reMarkable with their
> > 4.14 kernel. I have updated it to match the latest kernels.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <>
> It's awesome to see upstream support for contemporary consumer
> products being posted, thanks!

No worries!

> When it comes to a dedicated defconfig, is that necessary in this
> case? The needed drivers should be possible to enable either in
> imx_v6_v7_defconfig, or in multi_v7_defconfig (or, rather, both)?

Most of the defconfi could be shared with a standard imx7 config, but
some of the extra components like the Wacom digitiser,
cyttsp5_i2c_adapter, max77818 and bd71815 might be better off in it's
own defconfig.

If the maintainers are happy with enabling some of those in a imx7
defconfig then I'm happy to do that. I have tried to split out the
config changes (I have two otehr series that build on this one) so it
should be easy to rebase it all on a standard one.

> Adding new defconfigs is something we're avoiding as much as possible,
> since it adds CI overhead, and defconfigs easily get churny due to
> options moving around.
> In some cases we do it once per SoC family (i.e. the i.MX defconfigs),
> but we avoid it for products.

Makes sense, I will update my patches not to use a custom defconfig.


> -Olof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists