From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751889AbdH2KCz (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2017 06:02:55 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:34308 "EHLO mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751869AbdH2KCw (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2017 06:02:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:02:41 +0200 From: Viresh Kumar To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Jonathan Corbet , Vincent Guittot , Mark Brown , Stephen Boyd , Rajendra Nayak , Shiraz Hashim , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, robdclark@gmail.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/8] drivers: boot_constraint: Add boot_constraints_disable kernel parameter Message-ID: <20170829100241.GB3101@ubuntu> References: <4bec0c3e58f76e06e5305c5ddbab859e2a87935e.1501578037.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20170829063734.GC12198@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170829063734.GC12198@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 29-08-17, 08:37, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:53:43PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > + boot_constraints_disable > > + Do not set any boot constraints for devices. > > Shouldn't that be the default? As really, that is what the situation is > today, why force everyone to always enable the disable value? And > enabling a value to disable something is usually a sign of bad naming... I will explain once again how it is getting used and then will do whatever you suggest. - Platforms that don't need boot constraints should not enable the CONFIG in the first place. Though we use the same kernel image on multiple hardware types many times. - If a platform doesn't have a platform-specific driver that adds constraints at boot, then the boot constraint core wouldn't get into picture at all and it is as good as being disabled. - And the above boot-argument (boot_constraints_disable) is used ONLY in the case where the platform driver is adding boot constraints at runtime. So, the boot-constraints are disabled by default for everyone even if the configuration is enabled. And that's why I named it the way it is right now. Do you still feel that it needs to be renamed? -- viresh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:02:41 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V3 2/8] drivers: boot_constraint: Add boot_constraints_disable kernel parameter In-Reply-To: <20170829063734.GC12198@kroah.com> References: <4bec0c3e58f76e06e5305c5ddbab859e2a87935e.1501578037.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20170829063734.GC12198@kroah.com> Message-ID: <20170829100241.GB3101@ubuntu> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 29-08-17, 08:37, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:53:43PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > + boot_constraints_disable > > + Do not set any boot constraints for devices. > > Shouldn't that be the default? As really, that is what the situation is > today, why force everyone to always enable the disable value? And > enabling a value to disable something is usually a sign of bad naming... I will explain once again how it is getting used and then will do whatever you suggest. - Platforms that don't need boot constraints should not enable the CONFIG in the first place. Though we use the same kernel image on multiple hardware types many times. - If a platform doesn't have a platform-specific driver that adds constraints at boot, then the boot constraint core wouldn't get into picture at all and it is as good as being disabled. - And the above boot-argument (boot_constraints_disable) is used ONLY in the case where the platform driver is adding boot constraints at runtime. So, the boot-constraints are disabled by default for everyone even if the configuration is enabled. And that's why I named it the way it is right now. Do you still feel that it needs to be renamed? -- viresh