* Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> [190416 07:45]:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:23:57AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Hi Thierry,
> >
> > * Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> [190411 09:19]:
> > > --- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> > > @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ CONFIG_ARM_CPUIDLE=y
> > > CONFIG_ARM_ZYNQ_CPUIDLE=y
> > > CONFIG_ARM_EXYNOS_CPUIDLE=y
> > > CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON=y
> > > +CONFIG_TRUSTED_FOUNDATIONS=y
> > > CONFIG_NET=y
> > > CONFIG_PACKET=y
> > > CONFIG_UNIX=y
> >
> > I'm updating my branch for make savedefconfig clean-up
> > for multi_v7_defconfig as posted earlier in thread
> > "[PATCHv2 0/2] Update multi_v7_defconfig for dropped
> > and moved options", looks like this commit causes
> > a trivial merge conflict.
> >
> > Can we consider your branch immutable for commit
> > 8b695aa58cc4 ("ARM: Enable Trusted Foundations for
> > multiplatform ARM v7")?
>
> In general, the for-next branch from the Tegra tree is not stable. The
> individual branches that make up for-next are. In this case it would be
> for-5.2/arm/defconfig. However...
>
> > I'd like to merge that one in to avoid an unecessary
> > merge conflict.
>
> It's slightly tricky because I generated the multi_v7_defconfig on top
> of a different branch (because the TRUSTED_FOUNDATIONS symbol moves
> around in that branch), so if you base your update on top of my branch,
> the symbol will likely get moved around again.
>
> Perhaps better would be if you provide a stable branch with the update
> and then I can rebase this patch on top.
>
> Would that work for you?
OK sure, I'll push out a branch against v5.1-rc1 with just the
savedefconfig changes.
Regards,
Tony
