Re: RISC-V Linux Port v9
From: Arnd Bergmann
Date: Thu Oct 05 2017 - 03:34:57 EST
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 23:08:02 PDT (-0700), Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> As per suggestions on our v8 patch set, I've split the core architecture code
>>> out from our drivers and would like to submit this patch set to be included
>>> into linux-next, with the goal being to be merged in during the next merge
>>> window. This patch set is based on 4.14-rc2, but if it's better to have it
>>> based on something else then I can change it around.
>> -rc2 is good, just don't rebase it any more. I'd suggest that at the point this
>> becomes part of linux-next, you stop modifying the patches further and
>> move to adding any additional changes as patches on top.
> Sounds good. I've gotten a kernel.org account now, so I've gone ahead and
> signed a "for-linux-next" tag that contains this patch set. I'm going to treat
> what's here as an official pull request into linux-next and therefor I won't be
> rewriting history any more. If I understand everything correctly, once I'm in
> linux-next I'm meant to update that tag with commits that are ready to go?
> Is there anything further I should do in order to get that tag merged into
Please be aware that Stephen has announced that there won't be any
linux-next trees until the end of the month, which will be the kernel
summit in Prague.
It may be worth sending him a request to include your tree when
he returns, I assume there will be a long email backlog and he might
miss it otherwise.
>>> * I cleaned up the defconfigs -- there's actually now just one, and it's
>>> empty. For now I think we're OK with what the kernel sets as defaults, but
>>> I anticipate we'll begin to expand this as people start to use the port
>> The kernel defaults are not really as sensible as one would hope. Maybe
>> go through your previous defconfig once more and pick up the items that
>> made sense.
> I was a bit surprised at the defaults: for example, I'd expect things like
> CONFIG_PCI and CONFIG_NET to be enabled by default. I guess I just assumed
> that since technically we have a working kernel without those that it was fine
> to just stick with the defaults.
Some of the defaults are really pretty random and are only like this for
> Looking at our old defconfig, I'd pick
> does that seem reasonable?
Mostly yes, but please disable ext2 and use ext4 instead.