[PATCHv3 1/2] ARM: exynos_defconfig: Enable rtl8152 ethernet driver for Odroid-XU4

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 08 October 2015 11:27:13 Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> 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
> > corner
> > case: it's possible to do NFS root with an initramfs, but it's easier
> > not
> > 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 

Yes, agreed, that what I'm trying to do here ;-)

I realize that building things as modules is a hassle, it is so for
some things more than for others, so I keep asking the question
to everyone to find out what a good balance is to make as much as
possible modules without hurting too much.

Once we have a firm policy in place, we should probably change all
the existing symbols.

	Arnd