On 04/25/2012 11:12 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: >> We're still undergoing uplevel on tilt-tracking and didn't get back to >> tilt-3.3 functionality yet (OMAP4 boot is busted, although hopefully we >> have a fix for that today), so I put off this common config thing. >> >> However now I see it included, aren't most of the patches about board >> support redundant? If LTs base on this, they will add in their own >> golden initial defconfig for their board(s) at that point; when they're >> combined they'll all be in the combined tree. It seems like I shouldn't >> be seeing a defconfig about Panda coming in with this base tree, but >> create it (perhaps after mixing in config fragments that did come in >> with the base tree) in my tree. > > We could just have the fragments per topic, and then the LT can decide > either to add another fragment, or simply creating an entire different > config to be used by default. > > Having everything in config fragments may help automating the builds, > but I understand that having one defconfig might also help people that > are consuming the tree directly.
Yes I'm not really referring to fragment process here, I understand the idea and as I wrote expect the common one(s) to come in with this base tree. What I'm talking about is ./configs/panda.conf brought in by this http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=landing-teams/working/ti/kernel.git;a=commitdiff;h=36f22ea6ac55d44026d374669cb55c60bb366d4e actually, now we don't maintain anything directly equivalent, we only have omap4plus_defconfig that builds a single kernel that runs with everything we support, including OMAP543x. I guess panda.conf is trying to be mainline compatible OMAP44x0 Panda config. But what we're going to provide, and what's meaningful and tested with our tree, will be this omap4plus_defconfig that appears in our topics. panda.conf that we are inheriting from this basis branch may not even build with our tree, it's at least confusing to have it there and at worst it'll mislead end users, rot as we go on etc. We can figure out how to apply ./configs/linaro-base.conf to omap4panda_defconfig and work with that. But panda.conf coming in at base tree is not meaningful and not tested on our tree, I think it and the other board confs coming in probably need to be removed from the basis tree and the LT minimal configs introduced in LT trees used instead. -Andy -- Andy Green | TI Landing Team Leader Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs | Follow Linaro http://facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106 - http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://linaro.org/linaro-blog _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
