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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 17:36:33 -0800 From: Alistair Francis <alistair23@...il.com> To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> Cc: Alistair Francis <alistair@...stair23.me>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>, Linux ARM Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] remarkable2_defconfig: Add initial support for the reMarkable2 On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:30 PM Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote: > > Hi Alistair, > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 3:09 PM Alistair Francis <alistair@...stair23.me> 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 <alistair@...stair23.me> > > 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. Alistair > > > -Olof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists