Re: [PATCH] riscv: defconfig: run savedefconfig to reorder it

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 06:12:09 PDT (-0700), Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> On 6/12/25 11:32, Yixun Lan wrote:
> > Hi Alexandre,
> >
> > On 10:37 Thu 12 Jun     , Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> > > Hi Yixun,
> > >
> > > On 6/11/25 16:56, Yixun Lan wrote:
> > > > Changes to defconfig should be always updated via 'make
> > > > savedefconfig', run this command to make it aligned again.
> > > >
> > > > This will ease the effort of reviewing changes of defconfig
> > > > in the future.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yixun Lan <dlan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Update PDMA config bring in unnecessary changes[1], let's fix
> > > > it by run savedefconfig first.
> > >
> > > It would be easier if this patch was part of the PDMA series since the
> > > last patch will depend on it: @Guodong can you integrate this patch to
> > > your next revision of your patchset?
> > I'd rather make this patch independent, as nothing strongly ralated with PDMA,
> > and it probably would take several rounds for PDMA patch to be settled down..

Ya, I agree.

> > Besides, there is no problem for PDMA patch to depend on this patch if
> > needed (easy to use b4 to handle this..)

Yep, something like "b4 shazam -lts --merge --merge-base 958097bdf88"
should do it on the merge side -- and maybe you don't even need the 
merge base, if all the b4 send side stuff picks it up right.

> > The idea here is to get this patch merged as early as possible, as it's
> > quite straightforward, and other people may have similar problem instead
> > of PDMA here
>
>
> Ok makes sense, so let's Guodong deal with that then.

(for some reason this isn't showing up in patchwork)

I'm going to merge it as a single patch into for-next.  It'll loop 
through the tester, but things look in good shape so it shouldn't take 
too long.  This way there's a stable hash people can base stuff off, 
rather than waiting for some other patch set.

> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
>
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Alex