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
