On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 19:06 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > >> Or course, once Linaro's build and test infrastructure supports config > >> fragments fully, then we could have have separate config fragments for > >> - basic board config > >> - new board enablement > > Not sure if I follow this 100%... Can I have an example of "new board > enablement" vs "basic board config" config fragment?
I guess "basic board config" == config for features in Linus Torvald's tree. "new board enablement" == config for things only in LT tree. For us that's TC2 power managemnt and various drivers. Probably, most of the time the config for this extra stuff in LT trees is harmless (i.e. just gives KConfig warnings) but I imagine there might be things which would break llct. > >> - special features (e.g. big.LITTLE MP) > >> - testing or benchmarking config > >> and the configs could live in the tree relevant to the code they apply > >> to rather than having a single central board config we have to manage. > > There is already big-LITTLE-MP.conf in the LLCT tree which comes from > the big-LITTLE-MP topic. Yes, and we don't use it, instead I cut'n'paste it into vexpress.conf because CI jobs etc want a single config. And now I think about it, this probably doesn't play well with the big.LITTLE In-Kernel Switcher (IKS) project, so that's possibly going to have to patch vexpress.conf to remove MP and add IKS configs. -- Tixy _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
