RE: Alternative for defconfig

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Friday 11 June 2010 16:55:07 Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nagarajan, Rajkumar wrote:
> > > > 1. What is the alternative way of submitting defconfig changes/files to
> > > 
> > > LO?
> > 
> > I don't think defconfig changes are prohibited now. If I understand
> > correctly, Linus just hates the fact that there is a big percentage of
> > patches for defconfigs. Maybe he wants us to hold these, and better
> > provide higher percentage of actual code changes.
> > 
> > What about holding defconfig changes in a separate branch, and just send
> > them for upstream once in a while, specially if there's a big quantity of
> > them in the queue?
> > 
> > IMHO, defconfigs are just meant to make us life easier, but changes to them
> > should _never_ be a fix/solution to any problem, and therefore I understand
> > that those aren't a priority over regressions.
> 
> My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, 
> unless someone can convince him not to. Board-specific defconfigs won't be 
> allowed anymore, the number of defconfigs needs to be reduced drastically 
> (ideally to one or two only).
> 

There is some good work going on on the linux-arm-kernel mailing list to
cut down heavily the ARM defconfigs. Would be good to join that discussion.

For OMAP, I suppose maintaining omap1_defconfig and omap3_defconfig would
suffice to cover all OMAPs?

- Anand
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Input]     [Video for Linux]     [Gstreamer Embedded]     [Mplayer Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux