On 04/03/2012 01:43 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 12:30 -0700, John Stultz wrote: >> The difficulty is that as Tixy earlier pointed out, are that the LT >> kernel trees are mainline based, and thus aren't based off of something >> that would contain the base/distro/board config fragments. >> >> One approach we might be able to use is if the board defconfigs really >> are minimal, and restricted in scope to only the board options, we could >> switch the merge order (board/distro/base). This way the LT's "additive" >> defconfig can be used (from arch/arm/configs/ ) and we can still also >> get consistent generic options as well. > > The mainline defconfigs aren't minimal in the sense we want, they > include things like file-systems and networking options so somebody can > build a usable kernel, and I think it's sensible to keep it that way. > > For Linaro's purposes we would need a new board config. We could make > that minimal, but we get back to the idea that topic branches which > change configs would need to sit on top of the topic with this config. > Perhaps that is something we can live with if a > directory-of-config-fragments approach is deemed undesirable. > > It's a pity that the title of the thread possibly means no one from > other LTs are reading. (Probably a bit late to change it now and get > noticed.) > I hope not.
For Samsung LT kernel, we have followed an approach where in the commits in John's linaro_config_3.3 branch are taken to be stable commits and we have put those commits as the very first set of commits on LT kernel. Our LT kernel being a _serialized_ kernel where topic branches sit one over the other, the related config fragments are made part of the topic branches. A sample view of the same is posted at [1]. [1] git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/samsung/kernel.git (lt/next) -- Tushar Behera _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
