On 12.07.19 01:27, Brendan Higgins wrote: > Enrico, want me to CC you on that> and we can continue this discussion there? Yes. But I'd prefer having an own list for it - better for sorting and archiving ;-) > I wonder if that would work for the testing scenario? I don't think it> is unreasonable for a test owner to provide a defconfig that makes it> possible to run their test. We could then merge these together to> create a kconfig to run all desired tests. Doesn't address all the> issues I mentioned here, but it's a start. defconfig is a different thing - my idea (that I've dropped) was actually introducing new config options per board (and sub options for board features) which switch on all the neccessary things. The defconfigs are nice thing for starting off with some board, but they're basically examples, not production configurations. Yet another point why I've decided to cope all of this in a separate tool. --mtx -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering info@xxxxxxxxx -- +49-151-27565287 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
