Hi Arnd, On 8 October 2015 at 20:11, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 As long as we use correct exynos5422-odroidxu4.dtb is used in the boot.scr/boot.ini ethernet come up, build and tested using CONFIG_USB_RTL8152=m using multi_v7_defconfig. Not sure what is the policy for NFS booting. Do you want CONFIG_USB_RTL8152 to be build as module in exynos/multi_v7_defconfig. -Anand Moon -- 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
 |