Re: [PATCH v2 12/12] riscv: defconfig: Enable the Allwinner D1 platform and drivers

[Conor Dooley]

On 29 November 2022 06:49:25 GMT, Andrew Jones <ajones at ventanamicro.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 09:17:38PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On 28/11/2022 21:11, Heiko Stübner wrote:
>> > Am Samstag, 26. November 2022, 17:40:11 CET schrieb Conor Dooley:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 05:46:56PM -0600, Samuel Holland wrote:
>> >>> Now that several D1-based boards are supported, enable the platform in
>> >>> our defconfig. Build in the drivers which are necessary to boot, such as
>> >>> the pinctrl, MMC, RTC (which provides critical clocks), SPI (for flash),
>> >>> and watchdog (which may be left enabled by the bootloader).
>> >>
>> >> All of that looks good.
>> >>
>> >>> Other common
>> >>> onboard peripherals are enabled as modules.
>> >>
>> >> This I am not sure about though. I'll leave that to Palmer since I'm
>> >> pretty sure it was him that said it, but I thought the plan was only
>> >> turning on stuff required to boot to a console & things that are
>> >> generally useful rather than enabling modules for everyone's "random"
>> >> drivers. Palmer?
>> > 
>> > Isn't the defconfig meant as a starting point to get working systems
>> > with minimal config effort? At least that was always the way to go on arm
>> > so far :-) .
>> > 
>> > So having boot-required drivers built-in with the rest enabled as modules
>> > for supported boards will allow people to boot theirs without headaches.
>> > 
>> > Disabling unneeded drivers if you're starved for storage space in a special
>> > project is always easier than hunting down all the drivers to enable for a
>> > specific board. 
>> 
>> I wouldn't mind being able to turn on all the PolarFire SoC stuff and
>> yeah, that would be the way that arm64 does it. But I do recall hearing
>> that I should not turn stuff on this way, when I initially tried to
>> turn stuff on via selects, got a nack and asked if I could do this instead.
>> 
>> But it may be that I misremember, which is why I appealed to the Higher
>> Powers for clarification :)
>
>FWIW, I don't worry too much about modules in defconfig because I always
>immediately apply a 'LSMOD=$PWD/L localmodconfig' to it, where the L
>file is an lsmod output which only includes modules I need.

idk, defconfig to me is not about you or I, it's about A Developer that gets an SBC or a devkit and their experience.
Or alternatively, someone's CI ;)
I'd like to put everything in, but I recall that being shot down, that's all.