On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 04:00:58PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:26:03PM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > So for folks who enable CONFIG_FW_LOADER=y, they'd now be forced to gain an > > extra 13436 bytes broken down as follows: > > Ah, I see. > > If you have CONFIG_FW_LOADER and not CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER, then > you only have the in-kernel firmware loading mechanism? Right, we don't have the old fallback mechanism (which BTW used to be the default way back in the hayday). > Given the > *substantial* size difference between the two, it seems useful to have > that option. That's what I wanted to get to, is 13436 bytes is*substantial* enough to merit a kernel configuration option? It seems like that is the case. > What would it gain to combine the two? Well Android enables CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER, and if they do, I was trying to think if there really was any point in having CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER as an option. Who would enable CONFIG_FW_LOADER but not CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER? You see other than CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER we also have CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK and Android defaults that to y too. It used to be that CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK was a mess to understand in code, and this series has reduced it to simple bool now. I started wondering if trimming kconfig options may be worth it. Sadly I don't think we can remove CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK, and we'll have to just deal with it mapping to switching a sysctl option. But I figured it was a good time to also reconsider also if we even had any need for CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER. The less hairball of mess of kconfig options the better to test. Even though this series has reduced being able to consolidating being able to make a kernel now which lets us test all configurations in one build. Who would save some 13436 bytes in the real world? Luis
