Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Add CONFIG symbol as module attribute

From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>
To: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Cristina Moraru <cristina.moraru09@gmail.com>,
	"vegard.nossum@gmail.com" <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>,
	Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@gmail.com>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no>, Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	backports@vger.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"rafael.j.wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
	Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
	Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@ispras.ru>,
	Sathya Prakash Veerichetty <sathya.prakash@broadcom.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Laurence Oberman <loberman@redhat.com>,
	Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Jej B <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Daniel Jonsson <danijons@student.chalmers.se>,
	Andrzej Wasowski <wasowski@itu.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Add CONFIG symbol as module attribute
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 16:44:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b0b572e3-5d08-2224-fd8b-07f6bcbed53e@metux.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFd5g454UVYqm+HgA1nXsy-cAg_3gvjvZ4KQmW4P5gqpDp1WMg@mail.gmail.com>

On 12.07.19 01:27, Brendan Higgins wrote:

> Enrico, want me to CC you on that> and we can continue this discussion there?
Yes. But I'd prefer having an own list for it - better for sorting and
archiving ;-)

> I wonder if that would work for the testing scenario? I don't think it> is unreasonable for a test owner to provide a defconfig that makes it>
possible to run their test. We could then merge these together to>
create a kconfig to run all desired tests. Doesn't address all the>
issues I mentioned here, but it's a start.
defconfig is a different thing - my idea (that I've dropped) was
actually introducing new config options per board (and sub options
for board features) which switch on all the neccessary things.

The defconfigs are nice thing for starting off with some board, but
they're basically examples, not production configurations. Yet another
point why I've decided to cope all of this in a separate tool.

--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in