On 06/20/2013 05:41 PM, Sören Brinkmann wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:27:44AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 06/20/2013 10:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Thursday 20 June 2013, Michal Simek wrote: >>>> On 06/19/2013 08:46 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday 19 June 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote: >>>>>> I don't know how much a defconfig is supposed to provide, hence as RFC. >>>>>> This patches are needed for booting Zynq into a minimum ramfs based >>>>>> system with a serial console. >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion we should provide enable all the platform specific drivers >>>>> in the defconfigs, as well as everything needed to boot the system, >>>>> to get proper compile coverage as well as the ability to test changes >>>>> easily. Your patches look good. Michal, would you apply them and >>>>> send another pull request or should I just take them directly? >>>> >>>> Soren asked me 2 days ago if make sense to create zynq defconfig or not. >>>> I just suggested him to better extend this multi_v7_defconfig. >>>> But still question is if we can/should create zynq specific defconfig? >>>> Or are you going to remove all of these platform specific defconfig? >>> >>> We don't have a consistent policy across platforms at the moment. >>> Traditionally we had multiple defconfigs per platform, in some cases >>> one per board, but moving towards one defconfig per platform at >>> the moment. >> >> That's what I though but on the other hand in this process >> all these defconfigs should be removed. >> >>> I guess whether or not to have a separate defconfig for one platform >>> or to use only multi_*_defconfig is a question of how many people >>> would use a zynq_defconfig in practice. >> >> The point is if you look at zynq users than they will just use this >> zynq_defconfig >> because they know that it is for zynq and also they don't want to >> compile drivers for other platforms which zynq can't use. >> From distribution point of view they want to use only one image because it >> is just >> easier. >> >> Based on this if there is an option to also add just zynq defconfig, I would >> prefer >> to also add it. >> >>>> Definitely agree that multi_v7 defconfig should enable everything needed >>>> to boot the system. >>>> Does it also mean that we should also enable all zynq drivers >>>> to get better compile coverage? >>> >>> I would say yes. >>> >>> My feeling is that multi_v7_defconfig should enable all hardware >>> support for the platforms in it, and that users would take it >>> as a starting point if they want to have a configuration for >>> an embedded system, disabling everything they don't need. >> >> I just wanted to be sure because you wrote just drivers for booting >> it means any "minimal" configuration to get it boot not all drivers. >> >> If you are ok, Soren will prepare also specific zynq defconfig file >> and check if there are any missing drivers which are not enabled for zynq >> for multi_v7. I will collect them in one branch and will send pull request. > I can check. But I don't think it makes too much sense currently. Even > though multi_v7_defconfig targets several SOCs its pretty minimal. I > think there are just a few SOC BSPs and serial drivers selected. Due to > lacking driver support in mainline, a Zynq specific config would not be > that different, IMHO. > But this does hopefully change with growing driver support for Zynq in > mainline.
It depends. Kernel with all possible drivers for all arm multiplatform could be big and also it will take a lot of time to compile it. It is more up to Arnd and Olof. Thanks, Michal -- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91 w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854 Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/ Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
