Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-76190-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>, Maxime Ripard
 <mripard@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Enric Balletbo i Serra
 <eballetbo@redhat.com>, Erico Nunes <nunes.erico@gmail.com>, Brian Masney
 <bmasney@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Bjorn Andersson
 <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>, Konrad Dybcio
 <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
 Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: Enable zram, xfs and loading
 compressed FW support
In-Reply-To: <bd071521-7f7b-41e8-8786-ad2eeb58b03e@linaro.org>
References: <20240221141350.3740488-1-javierm@redhat.com>
 <1f28256c-e436-4add-aa67-2cfb2248b220@linaro.org>
 <6scz7iti3tzzrd4ph3gnuc2pvkcbtuuicgfgujh3pa3c34kdkt@bhfa4xbxeu7t>
 <cb8bf006-57df-494e-80f3-947582ec71f1@linaro.org>
 <fy3wffb2jwv4veo3golfn5olri77clxywbuwuokese7sbobixd@mird5k66cl2w>
 <9083c414-62f2-4bff-93ee-13f8ff60eb34@linaro.org>
 <874je1ipb4.fsf@minerva.mail-host-address-is-not-set>
 <bd071521-7f7b-41e8-8786-ad2eeb58b03e@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 10:09:54 +0100
Message-ID: <87r0h47tlp.fsf@minerva.mail-host-address-is-not-set>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> writes:

> On 21/02/2024 20:34, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

[...]

>>>
>>> Any explanation what ZRAM is necessary for Fedora to boot.
>>>
>> 
>> I mentioned already in another email, Fedora is enabling the systemd
>> zram-generator and not having a /dev/zram0 slows down the boot to the
>> point of being unusable. One could disable that service but then is yet
>
> That one sentence would be enough for me.
>

I'll add that then to the commit message when proposing a config fragment.

[...]

>> 
>> So that means that for aarch64, some filesystems have more precedence over
>> others? It's OK to have ext4 or btrfs but no xfs? Honestly it seems quite
>> arbitrary and subjective for me.
>
> Yes, subjective, but to be honest: I would drop Btrfs. I was thinking

Fair. If the agreegment is to minimize defconfig (which AFAIU is your
point), then I'm on board with it. We can start splitting in separate
fragments, people can then mix and match for their specific use cases.

> about it, but since Arnd agrees on XFS I won't fight that battle.
>

Yeah, it was a strange hill for me to die on and is true that fragments
seems to be the best compromise, as Maxime said before in this thread.

By the way, I want to apologize for my harsh/rude comments yesterday. I
wasn't in the best mood and I got too emotional...

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Core Platforms
Red Hat