On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 22:42 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > Scott Wood wrote: > >> > > >> >Why do you need a powerpc-specific way to use merge_config.sh? Other > >> >architectures have the same problem with defconfigs. > > > What are you perceiving as "powerpc-specific" about what we're > > proposing? > > Well, there's the subject of this thread, which is "new way of writing > defconfigs for freescale's powerpc platforms". > > > Are you complaining about the actual content of which > > fragments to use to produce which defconfigs going in arch/powerpc? > > No, I'm just trying to figure out what's powerpc-specific about Lijun's > proposal.
The set of defconfigs that we're talking about refactoring to use this mechanism. > >> >Besides, wouldn't it make more sense to define a new defconfig type, > >> >like p1_defconfig.merge, and if you do "make p1_defconfig.merge" it > >> >knows to call merge_config.sh? > > > That's already there. "make <foo>.config". > > Ok, so I'm definitely confused now. I have no idea what's actually > being proposed, since apparently the ability to have merge configs > already exists. The proposal is that we make use of that mechanism. > Wouldn't it just be simpler to pass multiple defconfigs to 'make', and > then 'make' will know to call merge_config.sh on them? So instead of > > make ./scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh > arch/powerpc/configs/fsl_basic_config p1_defconfig > make > > we can just do > > make fsl_basic_config p1_defconfig > make We want single-name config targets to still work from the user's perspective, but we want to reduce the (often imperfect) duplication under the hood. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
