Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
(copied from my comments in an off-list conversation)
However, I have declined (for now) to pick up the defconfigs for those
boards and instead merged in the config features they require into the
mpc5200 defconfig. My primary reason for doing so is to increase the
likelyhood that full featured kernels are built and tested so that
situations where board ports conflict with each other are caught and
fixed.
ojn has also been complaining about the number of defconfigs he needs
to build to test all the powerpc configurations without any
indications about which ones are important and which ones are not.
There has been some discussion about having a subdirectory for
optimized board configs, but nobody has done anything about it yet.
The one part that I have a really strong opinion on is that there
should be a full featured mpc5200 defconfig for build testing. Beyond
that (and if ojn can also be appeased) I can probably be convinced. :-)
Hi Grant,
How to deal with a situation where I need a particular PHY driver from
libphy compiled in the kernel for one of the MPC5200 boards? Adding it
to mpc5200_defconfig doesn't seem like a right thing to do. How to
convince you (and appease ojn) to accept a patch that adds a
board-specific defconfig that only slightly differs from
mpc5200_defconfig? :)
Regards,
Bartlomiej
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
