Hi Grant,
Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Grant Likely wrote:
> 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.
Why not? mpc5200_defconfig is all about compile and runtime testing
on many platforms to make sure drivers play well together. I have no
problem adding more drivers to the mpc5200 defconfig. (In fact, I
encourage it).
How to
convince you (and appease ojn) to accept a patch that adds a
board-specific defconfig that only slightly differs from
mpc5200_defconfig? :)
I'm thinking 'optimized' defconfigs should go into a subdirectory.
This requires a change to the top-level Makefile and shepherding this
change upstream. Could we perhaps try to avoid this by having optimized
defconfigs in the form of, for example:
arch/powerpc/configs/tqm5200_opt_defconfig
arch/powerpc/configs/motionpro_opt_defconfig
Or, to signify what is the base defconfig:
arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_tqm5200_defconfig
arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_motionpro_defconfig
or even:
arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_opt_tqm5200_defconfig
arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_opt_motionpro_defconfig
Would patch adding an optimized _defconfig along these lines be accepted?
Regards,
Bartlomiej
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
