Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <7d6595c2-1200-9c27-dac9-8f76ea743447@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 23 Jul 2022 22:56:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ARM: qcom_defconfig: order items with
 savedefconfig
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
References: <20220721155356.248319-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
 <2246145.ElGaqSPkdT@g550jk> <c5150e83-0e50-3be6-b6bd-bf30fe5e94d1@linaro.org>
 <2109260.irdbgypaU6@g550jk>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <2109260.irdbgypaU6@g550jk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 23/07/2022 20:52, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Samstag, 23. Juli 2022 20:44:08 CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/07/2022 20:17, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>> On Samstag, 23. Juli 2022 19:36:17 CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 23/07/2022 11:58, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>>>> See also
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20191104210943.101393-1-luca@z3ntu
>>>>> .x
>>>>> yz/ (never applied for some reason)
>>>>
>>>> Mentioned patch is incorrect so should not be applied - it removes at
>>>> least TMPFS which is not desired. I did not check other removed symbols.
>>>
>>> For this example: TMPFS is still enabled after this, it's selected by
>>> other
>>> options, like DRM or COMMON_CLK.
>>
>> I know, it does not matter. We had this case (with DEBUGFS and probably
>> others) and the decision was - user visible symbols must no be removed
>> by savedefconfig.
> 
> So savedefconfig is "broken" (not doing the correct thing) then or what? Sounds 
> like a topic for kconfig maintainers?

I agree.

Best regards,
Krzysztof