Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: defconfig: enable additional drivers needed by NXP QorIQ boards

[Shawn Guo]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 04:44:09PM +0000, Leo Li wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 11:38 PM
> > To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: defconfig: enable additional drivers needed
> > by NXP QorIQ boards
> > 
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 06:55:59PM -0600, Li Yang wrote:
> > > This enables the following SoC device drivers for NXP/FSL QorIQ SoCs:
> > > CONFIG_QORIQ_CPUFREQ=y
> > > CONFIG_NET_SWITCHDEV=y
> > > CONFIG_MSCC_OCELOT_SWITCH=y
> > > CONFIG_CAN=m
> > > CONFIG_CAN_FLEXCAN=m
> > > CONFIG_FSL_MC_BUS=y
> > > CONFIG_MTD_NAND_FSL_IFC=y
> > > CONFIG_FSL_ENETC=y
> > > CONFIG_FSL_ENETC_VF=y
> > > CONFIG_SPI_FSL_LPSPI=y
> > > CONFIG_SPI_FSL_QUADSPI=y
> > > CONFIG_SPI_FSL_DSPI=y
> > > CONFIG_GPIO_MPC8XXX=y
> > > CONFIG_ARM_SBSA_WATCHDOG=y
> > > CONFIG_DRM_MALI_DISPLAY=m
> > > CONFIG_FSL_MC_DPIO=y
> > > CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_FSL_DPAA2_CAAM=m
> > > CONFIG_FSL_DPAA=y
> > > CONFIG_FSL_FMAN=y
> > > CONFIG_FSL_DPAA_ETH=y
> > > CONFIG_FSL_DPAA2_ETH=y
> > >
> > > And the drivers for on-board devices for the upstreamed QorIQ
> > > reference
> > > boards:
> > > CONFIG_MTD_CFI=y
> > > CONFIG_MTD_CFI_ADV_OPTIONS=y
> > > CONFIG_MTD_CFI_INTELEXT=y
> > > CONFIG_MTD_CFI_AMDSTD=y
> > > CONFIG_MTD_CFI_STAA=y
> > > CONFIG_MTD_PHYSMAP=y
> > > CONFIG_MTD_PHYSMAP_OF=y
> > > CONFIG_MTD_DATAFLASH=y
> > > CONFIG_MTD_SST25L=y
> > > CONFIG_EEPROM_AT24=m
> > > CONFIG_RTC_DRV_DS1307=y
> > > CONFIG_RTC_DRV_PCF85363=y
> > > CONFIG_RTC_DRV_PCF2127=y
> > > CONFIG_E1000=y
> > > CONFIG_AQUANTIA_PHY=y
> > > CONFIG_MICROSEMI_PHY=y
> > > CONFIG_VITESSE_PHY=y
> > > CONFIG_MDIO_BUS_MUX_MULTIPLEXER=y
> > > CONFIG_MUX_MMIO=y
> > >
> > > The following two options are implied by new options and removed from
> > > defconfig:
> > > CONFIG_CLK_QORIQ=y
> > > CONFIG_MEMORY=y
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Li Yang <leoyang.li@xxxxxxx>
> > 
> > This is too much change in a single patch. It should be split properly to make
> > review and merge easier, considering arm-soc folks are cautious to those 'y'
> > options.
> 
> Ok.  So probably separating them based on different subsystems will be good?  It would be too many patches if I separate for each individual config option.

Yep, subsystem should be good.  And for those 'y' options, please state
why they need necessarily to be 'y'.

Shawn