On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 23:08:02 PDT (-0700), Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> As per suggestions on our v8 patch set, I've split the core architecture code >>> out from our drivers and would like to submit this patch set to be included >>> into linux-next, with the goal being to be merged in during the next merge >>> window. This patch set is based on 4.14-rc2, but if it's better to have it >>> based on something else then I can change it around. >> >> -rc2 is good, just don't rebase it any more. I'd suggest that at the point this >> becomes part of linux-next, you stop modifying the patches further and >> move to adding any additional changes as patches on top. > > Sounds good. I've gotten a kernel.org account now, so I've gone ahead and > signed a "for-linux-next" tag that contains this patch set. I'm going to treat > what's here as an official pull request into linux-next and therefor I won't be > rewriting history any more. If I understand everything correctly, once I'm in > linux-next I'm meant to update that tag with commits that are ready to go? > > Is there anything further I should do in order to get that tag merged into > linux-next? Please be aware that Stephen has announced that there won't be any linux-next trees until the end of the month, which will be the kernel summit in Prague. https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/29/13 It may be worth sending him a request to include your tree when he returns, I assume there will be a long email backlog and he might miss it otherwise. >>> * I cleaned up the defconfigs -- there's actually now just one, and it's >>> empty. For now I think we're OK with what the kernel sets as defaults, but >>> I anticipate we'll begin to expand this as people start to use the port >>> more. >> >> The kernel defaults are not really as sensible as one would hope. Maybe >> go through your previous defconfig once more and pick up the items that >> made sense. > > I was a bit surprised at the defaults: for example, I'd expect things like > CONFIG_PCI and CONFIG_NET to be enabled by default. I guess I just assumed > that since technically we have a working kernel without those that it was fine > to just stick with the defaults. Some of the defaults are really pretty random and are only like this for historic reasons. > Looking at our old defconfig, I'd pick > > CONFIG_PCI=y > CONFIG_NAMESPACES=y > CONFIG_NET=y > CONFIG_UNIX=y > CONFIG_INET=y > CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y > CONFIG_EXT2_FS=y > CONFIG_TMPFS=y > > does that seem reasonable? Mostly yes, but please disable ext2 and use ext4 instead. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
