Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935421AbcJRAEn (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:04:43 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-f196.google.com ([209.85.216.196]:36002 "EHLO mail-qt0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753749AbcJRAEf (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:04:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [209.133.79.5] In-Reply-To: <207706e2-8fd4-748f-2ee7-3c372b447a7d@broadcom.com> References: <1476298306-9138-1-git-send-email-scott.branden@broadcom.com> <207706e2-8fd4-748f-2ee7-3c372b447a7d@broadcom.com> From: Olof Johansson Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:04:34 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: enable EEPROM_AT25 config option To: Scott Branden Cc: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , BCM Kernel Feedback Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1267 Lines: 39 On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Scott Branden wrote: > Hi Olof, > > On 16-10-17 02:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Scott Branden >> wrote: >>> >>> Enable support for on board SPI EEPROM by turning on >>> CONFIG_EEPROM_AT25. This needs to be on in order to >>> boot and test the kernel with a static rootfs image >>> that is not rebuilt everytime the kernel is rebuilt. >> >> >> If we did this for every kernel option we'd get a huge kernel. >> >> In general, we've said that static options for what's needed to boot >> to rootfs (i.e. storage and network drivers for nfsroot) are fine to >> enable statically. >> >> I doubt you need the EEPROM driver to boot to rootfs on your system, >> so please enable it as a module instead. >> >> Look into using config fragments in case you need to modify the >> options for local builds, it should be a convenient way to have a >> small delta to apply to fit your internal needs, instead of completely >> forking the config file. > > > Do you allow such config fragments to be upstreamed or do we need to > maintain these in our tree? There's no place for them upstream. Maintain locally or in a separate repo. -Olof