Hi Krzysztof, On 9 October 2015 at 16:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > W dniu 09.10.2015 o 19:28, Arnd Bergmann pisze: >> On Friday 09 October 2015 11:59:05 Sjoerd Simons wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Fwiw, I don't find building modules overly cumbersome. Getting an >>> initramfs capable of moving on to an NFS root is mostly a one-time >>> thing (not unlike setting up the nfs root itself) and injecting modules >>> into it is relatively simple (doubly so if taking advantage of the >>> multiple cpio archive feature linux has). >>> >>> Interestingly, for me not building things as modules in multi_v7 tends >>> to cause more work as it hides a few categories of bugs that tend to >>> crop up once building distro kernels (e.g. missing module aliases, >>> missing module device table entries, implicitly relying on clocks being >>> active during probe as unused clocks only get turned of late in the >>> init sequence etc). >>> >> >> Ok, let's try to make all future network drivers modules in the >> multi_v7_defconfig then, and get people to use an initramfs >> if they need NFS root. If nobody complains too loudly for the >> next few releases, we can change the existing drivers to =m as well. > > Personally I don't use NFS root and we don't have such configurations at > work. At least I am not aware of such. So from my point of view network > adapters as module is okay. > > Anand, > Can you change it in multi_v7 patch to module? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Yes I will change this to build as module for multi_v7, and resend the patch. -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
 |