On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:02:41PM +0200, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 29-08-17, 08:37, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:53:43PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > + boot_constraints_disable > > > + Do not set any boot constraints for devices. > > > > Shouldn't that be the default? As really, that is what the situation is > > today, why force everyone to always enable the disable value? And > > enabling a value to disable something is usually a sign of bad naming... > > I will explain once again how it is getting used and then will do whatever you > suggest. > > - Platforms that don't need boot constraints should not enable the CONFIG in the > first place. Though we use the same kernel image on multiple hardware types > many times. Right, which means this is useless as an option, don't ever rely on it :) > - If a platform doesn't have a platform-specific driver that adds constraints at > boot, then the boot constraint core wouldn't get into picture at all and it is > as good as being disabled. Possibly, but see above for the goal of one kernel image, many different devices. > - And the above boot-argument (boot_constraints_disable) is used ONLY in the > case where the platform driver is adding boot constraints at runtime. > > So, the boot-constraints are disabled by default for everyone even if the > configuration is enabled. And that's why I named it the way it is right now. > > Do you still feel that it needs to be renamed? Well, negative options are ackward (although usb_disable is an option...) It still feels wrong, and I worry about the above single-image goal... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
