On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 08:16:14AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 02:00:25PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 03:30:24PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 07:46:04PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > o By default we now always skip built-in firmware even if a FW_LOADER=y > > > > > > > > I do not understand, why would we ever want to skip built-in firmware? > > > > > > Because it is done this way today only implicitly because > > > EXTRA_FIRMWARE is empty. Using a kconfig entry makes this > > > more obvious. > > > > Greg, > > > > The fact that it was not obvious to you we were effectively disabling > > the built-in firmware functionality by default using side kconfig > > symbols is a good reason to clarify this situation with its own kconfig > > symbol. > > > > And consider what I started below as well. > > > > Please let me know why on the other hand we should *not* add this new > > kconfig symbol? > > Because added complexity for no real good reason? You need to justify > why we need yet-another firmware kconfig option here. We should be > working to remove them, not add more, if at all possible. I did, it actually simplifies things more and makes the fact that we disable the functionality of the built-in firmware by default clearer. So no, this is not adding complexity. Luis
