On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:07 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In lieu of no Luke Skywalker, if you will, for a large kconfig revamp > on this, I'm inclined to believe *at least* having some kconfig_symb > exposed for some modules is better than nothing. Christoph are you > totally opposed to this effort until we get a non-reverse engineered > effort in place? It just seems like an extraordinary amount of work > and I'm not quite sure who's volunteering to do it. > > Other stakeholders may benefit from at least having some config --> > module mapping for now. Not just backports or building slimmer > kernels. Christoph, *poke* Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
