From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:19:27 +0530 Subject: [RFC 1/5] drivers: Add boot constraints core In-Reply-To: <20170629125040.GW4902@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> References: <24921f2a6a86cb9b2b3a1cae86649180bc116a62.1498642745.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <78941b27-c233-837d-9709-b11c01f1ab1f@infradead.org> <20170629035157.GG29665@vireshk-i7> <20170629125040.GW4902@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170629144927.GP29665@vireshk-i7> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 29-06-17, 13:50, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:21:57AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 28-06-17, 08:55, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > On 06/28/2017 03:26 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > > +config BOOT_CONSTRAINTS > > > > + bool "Boot constraints for devices" > > > > + default y > > > > > > Why default y? > > > > > > As Linus just wrote yesterday: > > > > > > No. We've tried. The only sensible default (and that I try to enforce) > > > is "new featrures default to 'n'" > > > > Yeah, this should have been n really. > > Given that the default default is to default to n, you don't need to > supply a default that just says what the default default actually is. > Please also avoid silly defaults. That was nice :) Yeah, will get rid of the default statement here. -- viresh