On Thursday 08 October 2015 11:27:13 Sjoerd Simons wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 10:37 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 08 October 2015 16:46:27 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > On 08.10.2015 16:41, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Thursday 08 October 2015 03:48:36 Anand Moon wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig > > > > > b/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig > > > > > index 1ff2bfa..5d1937b 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig > > > > > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_DM=y > > > > > CONFIG_DM_CRYPT=m > > > > > CONFIG_NETDEVICES=y > > > > > CONFIG_SMSC911X=y > > > > > +CONFIG_USB_RTL8152=y > > > > > CONFIG_USB_USBNET=y > > > > > CONFIG_USB_NET_SMSC75XX=y > > > > > CONFIG_USB_NET_SMSC95XX=y > > > > > > > > Can we make that a loadable module for multi_v7_defconfig? > > > > > > What about nfsroot boots? We were discussing this also here: > > > http://linux-arm-kernel.infradead.narkive.com/lG5g4hrB/patch-arm-mu > > > lti-v7-defconfig-enable-usb3503 > > > > > > and actually I would be happy to see a confirmed policy about that. > > > Everything should be a module for multi_v7? > > > > We try to make as much as possible modular here, and NFS root is a > > corner > > case: it's possible to do NFS root with an initramfs, but it's easier > > not > > to. Is it something you do a lot on this hardware? > > It's a workflow thing though, not a hardware specific thing. I > personally tend to use NFS root quite often and so do various > colleagues irrespective of the hardware (and an XU4 is bound to appear > on my desk someday). > > Now I personally really don't mind whether NFS root requires a ramdisk > or not (though some consistency would be nice). However deciding it on > a per device basis just makes everything quite fuzzy (e.g. my recent > rockchip multi_v7 patchset first ended up in a similar discussion, > though v2 was merged without further comments when I indicated in the > cover letter that i used the NFS root use-case as one of the deciding > factors for y vs. m). > > It would be really good to see someone put their foot down on the > general policy (e.g. the arm-soc maintainers?), such that this > discussion doesn't need to happen every time Yes, agreed, that what I'm trying to do here ;-) I realize that building things as modules is a hassle, it is so for some things more than for others, so I keep asking the question to everyone to find out what a good balance is to make as much as possible modules without hurting too much. Once we have a firm policy in place, we should probably change all the existing symbols. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |