From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 07:41:25 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] ARM: Make FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER configurable if
 ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M
In-Reply-To: <20150908221912.GE21084@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1441744686-20521-1-git-send-email-mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>
 <1441744686-20521-2-git-send-email-mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>
 <20150908221912.GE21084@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20150909054125.GA14598@pengutronix.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 11:19:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:38:04PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> > This patch makes FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER configurable in defconfig for ARMV7-M
> > when built for a single platform.
> 
> I'd prefer if we didn't do this, because this isn't supposed to be a user
> visible "option".  It's an option that was introduced to avoid having to
> throw masses of #ifdefs into the definition of MAX_ZONEORDER.
> 
> The problem with it is that it's a "well, what do I set this to?" option
> and that leads to "oh, I'll just choose the default because I don't know
> any better".
> 
> Do we know why EFM32 needs a value of 9 here?  It's not documented in
> the original commit, and it really _should_ have been.
IIRC it was done because of memory pressure. But not sure this makes any
sense. I will try with the default value later today and report back.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |