Re: [PATCH 2/2] remarkable2_defconfig: Add initial support for the reMarkable2

[Alistair Francis]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 6:03 PM Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:36 PM Alistair Francis <alistair23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:30 PM Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alistair,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 3:09 PM Alistair Francis <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This defconfig is based on the one released by reMarkable with their
> > > > 4.14 kernel. I have updated it to match the latest kernels.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > It's awesome to see upstream support for contemporary consumer
> > > products being posted, thanks!
> >
> > No worries!
> >
> > >
> > > When it comes to a dedicated defconfig, is that necessary in this
> > > case? The needed drivers should be possible to enable either in
> > > imx_v6_v7_defconfig, or in multi_v7_defconfig (or, rather, both)?
> >
> > Most of the defconfi could be shared with a standard imx7 config, but
> > some of the extra components like the Wacom digitiser,
> > cyttsp5_i2c_adapter, max77818 and bd71815 might be better off in it's
> > own defconfig.
> >
> > If the maintainers are happy with enabling some of those in a imx7
> > defconfig then I'm happy to do that. I have tried to split out the
> > config changes (I have two otehr series that build on this one) so it
> > should be easy to rebase it all on a standard one.
>
> Yeah, enabling those in imx_v6_v7_defconfig and multi_v7_defconfig is
> fine (or, really, desirable and preferred).
>
> Please enable as modules where possible (i.e anything that's fine to
> wait loading until after rootfs is mounted), to avoid kernel image
> growth on platforms that don't need those drivers.

I just sent a v2 of this series. Patch 1 is the same but I'm now using
the imx_v6_v7_defconfig in patch 2 and 3.

I only need a single change so hopefully that's fine. I'm sure more
features will need to be enabled but they can come with future
patches.

Alistair

>
> > > Adding new defconfigs is something we're avoiding as much as possible,
> > > since it adds CI overhead, and defconfigs easily get churny due to
> > > options moving around.
> > >
> > > In some cases we do it once per SoC family (i.e. the i.MX defconfigs),
> > > but we avoid it for products.
> >
> > Makes sense, I will update my patches not to use a custom defconfig.
>
> Awesome, thanks!
>
>
> -Olof