| Message ID | 20211119164413.29052-1-palmer@rivosinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | RISC-V: Clean up the defconfigs | expand |
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:14 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > It's been a while since updating the defconfigs, so I figured it would > be good to go through all the diff to make sure nothing was lurking. It > turns out there were two minor issues, which I've fixed with the first > two patches. The rest of these are just cleanups that should have no > functional change. > > I don't have a K210 (I might somewhere, but I've yet to boot it) so I > can't test this to make sure, but I think patch 2 is the reason we have > a special !MMU PAGE_OFFSET config. If someone does have one it'd be > nice to be able to remove that special case. > > Using savedefconfig, I used to always get a huge diff so thanks for doing this cleanups. Going forward, I suggest that we insiste everyone to always use "make savedefconfig" for creating defconfig patches. Regards, Anup
On 2021/11/20 1:45, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > It's been a while since updating the defconfigs, so I figured it would > be good to go through all the diff to make sure nothing was lurking. It > turns out there were two minor issues, which I've fixed with the first > two patches. The rest of these are just cleanups that should have no > functional change. > > I don't have a K210 (I might somewhere, but I've yet to boot it) so I > can't test this to make sure, but I think patch 2 is the reason we have > a special !MMU PAGE_OFFSET config. If someone does have one it'd be > nice to be able to remove that special case. Note: incorrect email address for Atish. Fixed here.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:32 PM Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:14 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > > > It's been a while since updating the defconfigs, so I figured it would > > be good to go through all the diff to make sure nothing was lurking. It > > turns out there were two minor issues, which I've fixed with the first > > two patches. The rest of these are just cleanups that should have no > > functional change. > > > > I don't have a K210 (I might somewhere, but I've yet to boot it) so I > > can't test this to make sure, but I think patch 2 is the reason we have > > a special !MMU PAGE_OFFSET config. If someone does have one it'd be > > nice to be able to remove that special case. > > > > > > Using savedefconfig, I used to always get a huge diff so thanks for > doing this cleanups. Going forward, I suggest that we insiste everyone > to always use "make savedefconfig" for creating defconfig patches. Yep, using "savedefconfig" is always required by U-Boot maintainers. I thought that's always the case for the Linux kernel but it seems it is not the case. Regards, Bin
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 18:45:24 PST (-0800), bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote: > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:32 PM Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:14 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> wrote: >> > >> > It's been a while since updating the defconfigs, so I figured it would >> > be good to go through all the diff to make sure nothing was lurking. It >> > turns out there were two minor issues, which I've fixed with the first >> > two patches. The rest of these are just cleanups that should have no >> > functional change. >> > >> > I don't have a K210 (I might somewhere, but I've yet to boot it) so I >> > can't test this to make sure, but I think patch 2 is the reason we have >> > a special !MMU PAGE_OFFSET config. If someone does have one it'd be >> > nice to be able to remove that special case. >> > >> > >> >> Using savedefconfig, I used to always get a huge diff so thanks for >> doing this cleanups. Going forward, I suggest that we insiste everyone >> to always use "make savedefconfig" for creating defconfig patches. > > Yep, using "savedefconfig" is always required by U-Boot maintainers. I > thought that's always the case for the Linux kernel but it seems it is > not the case. It's actually a bit more complicated than that, as the results of savedefconfig change to track Kconfig updates. I'd mostly been running savedefconfig and tossing the extra diff for people, but that led to a bit of a mess here. There's no way we can require everyone to run savedefconfig on our tree (and even if we could, it'd be a merge nightmare). IIUC what most folks do is regularly re-spin the defconfigs, now that they're clean that should be easy. I'm going to start doing that, the best I can come up with is in the second week of the merge window -- that way we'll have both fixes and for-next based on the newer defconfigs, along with all the WIP branches that folks base on rc1. If anyone's got a better scheme then I'm all ears, though. This patch set is on for-next. Thanks!