On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 08:16:14AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 02:00:25PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 03:30:24PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 07:46:04PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

quoted

  o By default we now always skip built-in firmware even if a FW_LOADER=y

I do not understand, why would we ever want to skip built-in firmware?

Because it is done this way today only implicitly because
EXTRA_FIRMWARE is empty. Using a kconfig entry makes this
more obvious.

Greg,

The fact that it was not obvious to you we were effectively disabling
the built-in firmware functionality by default using side kconfig
symbols is a good reason to clarify this situation with its own kconfig
symbol.

And consider what I started below as well.

Please let me know why on the other hand we should *not* add this new
kconfig symbol?

Because added complexity for no real good reason?  You need to justify
why we need yet-another firmware kconfig option here.  We should be
working to remove them, not add more, if at all possible.

I did, it actually simplifies things more and makes the fact that we
disable the functionality of the built-in firmware by default clearer.

So no, this is not adding complexity.

 Luis