| Message ID | 1415954071-5934-2-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Albert ARIBAUD |
| Headers | show |
Hello Hans, On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:34:29 +0100, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: > From: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> > > For similar reasons to why the Linux Kernel has an EXPERT option, we too > want an option to allow for tweaking of some options that while normally > should remain hidden, may need to be changed in some cases. > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> > Acked-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> > Acked-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > --- As you're just resending Tom's patch, should it have your own Signed-off-by? No need to post v6 if you think this should be corrected, I would do it when applying. Amicalement,
Hi, On 11/14/2014 09:55 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hello Hans, > > On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:34:29 +0100, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > wrote: >> From: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> >> >> For similar reasons to why the Linux Kernel has an EXPERT option, we too >> want an option to allow for tweaking of some options that while normally >> should remain hidden, may need to be changed in some cases. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> >> Acked-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> >> Acked-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> >> --- > > As you're just resending Tom's patch, should it have your own > Signed-off-by? No need to post v6 if you think this should be > corrected, I would do it when applying. AFAIK it is normal to add a Signed-off-by when a patch passes through ones hands / tree. But I'm fine with having it removed, either way works for me. Regards, Hans
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 09:58:52AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/14/2014 09:55 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > Hello Hans, > > > > On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:34:29 +0100, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > > wrote: > >> From: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> > >> > >> For similar reasons to why the Linux Kernel has an EXPERT option, we too > >> want an option to allow for tweaking of some options that while normally > >> should remain hidden, may need to be changed in some cases. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> > >> Acked-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> > >> Acked-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > >> --- > > > > As you're just resending Tom's patch, should it have your own > > Signed-off-by? No need to post v6 if you think this should be > > corrected, I would do it when applying. > > AFAIK it is normal to add a Signed-off-by when a patch passes through > ones hands / tree. But I'm fine with having it removed, either way > works for me. I don't have a preference either way. We don't add S-o-B lines as often as the kernel does but I don't want to make people worry about that when switching between kernel and u-boot work either.
Hello Tom, On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:43:55 -0500, Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 09:58:52AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 11/14/2014 09:55 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > > Hello Hans, > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:34:29 +0100, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > >> From: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> > > >> > > >> For similar reasons to why the Linux Kernel has an EXPERT option, we too > > >> want an option to allow for tweaking of some options that while normally > > >> should remain hidden, may need to be changed in some cases. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> > > >> Acked-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> > > >> Acked-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > > >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > > >> --- > > > > > > As you're just resending Tom's patch, should it have your own > > > Signed-off-by? No need to post v6 if you think this should be > > > corrected, I would do it when applying. > > > > AFAIK it is normal to add a Signed-off-by when a patch passes through > > ones hands / tree. But I'm fine with having it removed, either way > > works for me. > > I don't have a preference either way. We don't add S-o-B lines as often > as the kernel does but I don't want to make people worry about that when > switching between kernel and u-boot work either. Makes sense -- I had not thought about this kernel/u-boot switching. > -- > Tom Amicalement,
diff --git a/Kconfig b/Kconfig index f34f341..405b7a6 100644 --- a/Kconfig +++ b/Kconfig @@ -58,6 +58,14 @@ config CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE endmenu # General setup +menuconfig EXPERT + bool "Configure standard U-Boot features (expert users)" + help + This option allows certain base U-Boot options and settings + to be disabled or tweaked. This is for specialized + environments which can tolerate a "non-standard" U-Boot. + Only use this if you really know what you are doing. + menu "Boot images" config SPL_BUILD