Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753491AbdF2Ott (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:49:49 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]:32831 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753250AbdF2Ota (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:49:30 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:19:27 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, rnayak@codeaurora.org,
        Shiraz Hashim <shashim@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/5] drivers: Add boot constraints core
Message-ID: <20170629144927.GP29665@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1498642745.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <24921f2a6a86cb9b2b3a1cae86649180bc116a62.1498642745.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <78941b27-c233-837d-9709-b11c01f1ab1f@infradead.org>
 <20170629035157.GG29665@vireshk-i7>
 <20170629125040.GW4902@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170629125040.GW4902@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 820
Lines: 28

On 29-06-17, 13:50, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:21:57AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 28-06-17, 08:55, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 06/28/2017 03:26 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > 
> > > > +config BOOT_CONSTRAINTS
> > > > +	bool "Boot constraints for devices"
> > > > +	default y
> > > 
> > > Why default y?
> > > 
> > > As Linus just wrote yesterday:
> > > 
> > > No. We've tried. The only sensible default (and that I try to enforce)
> > > is "new featrures default to 'n'"
> > 
> > Yeah, this should have been n really.
> 
> Given that the default default is to default to n, you don't need to
> supply a default that just says what the default default actually is.
> Please also avoid silly defaults.

That was nice :)

Yeah, will get rid of the default statement here.

-- 
viresh