On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:19:06AM +0100, Richard Fitzgerald wrote: > On 11/06/2024 17:12, Mark Brown wrote: > > This doesn't seem particularly different to any other unhelpful chip > > default, I'm not sure why it'd be so urgent that we'd hard code a > I'm not sure I understand the objection here. Are you objecting to the > patch itself, or that I marked it as a Fixes? Both I guess, but mainly the patch itself - we generally have an extremely high bar for setting defaults different to the chip defaults to avoid issues with differing use cases.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
