[PATCHv3 1/2] ARM: exynos_defconfig: Enable rtl8152 ethernet driver for Odroid-XU4
sjoerd.simons at collabora.co.uk
Thu Oct 8 02:27:13 PDT 2015
On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 10:37 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 08 October 2015 16:46:27 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 08.10.2015 16:41, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thursday 08 October 2015 03:48:36 Anand Moon wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig
> > > > b/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig
> > > > index 1ff2bfa..5d1937b 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig
> > > > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_DM=y
> > > > CONFIG_DM_CRYPT=m
> > > > CONFIG_NETDEVICES=y
> > > > CONFIG_SMSC911X=y
> > > > +CONFIG_USB_RTL8152=y
> > > > CONFIG_USB_USBNET=y
> > > > CONFIG_USB_NET_SMSC75XX=y
> > > > CONFIG_USB_NET_SMSC95XX=y
> > >
> > > Can we make that a loadable module for multi_v7_defconfig?
> > What about nfsroot boots? We were discussing this also here:
> > http://linux-arm-kernel.infradead.narkive.com/lG5g4hrB/patch-arm-mu
> > lti-v7-defconfig-enable-usb3503
> > and actually I would be happy to see a confirmed policy about that.
> > Everything should be a module for multi_v7?
> We try to make as much as possible modular here, and NFS root is a
> case: it's possible to do NFS root with an initramfs, but it's easier
> to. Is it something you do a lot on this hardware?
It's a workflow thing though, not a hardware specific thing. I
personally tend to use NFS root quite often and so do various
colleagues irrespective of the hardware (and an XU4 is bound to appear
on my desk someday).
Now I personally really don't mind whether NFS root requires a ramdisk
or not (though some consistency would be nice). However deciding it on
a per device basis just makes everything quite fuzzy (e.g. my recent
rockchip multi_v7 patchset first ended up in a similar discussion,
though v2 was merged without further comments when I indicated in the
cover letter that i used the NFS root use-case as one of the deciding
factors for y vs. m).
It would be really good to see someone put their foot down on the
general policy (e.g. the arm-soc maintainers?), such that this
discussion doesn't need to happen every time :)
More information about the linux-arm-kernel