RE: Alternative for defconfig

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

 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laurent Pinchart [mailto:laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:26 AM
> To: Gadiyar, Anand
> Cc: Aguirre, Sergio; Felipe Contreras; Nagarajan, Rajkumar; linux-
> media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Hiremath, Vaibhav; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Alternative for defconfig
> 
> Hi Anand,
> 
> On Friday 11 June 2010 17:14:19 Gadiyar, Anand wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I'm not sure what the exact roadmap will be. Linus is complaining about
> the
> defconfig changes taking up too much of the diffstat. I don't know if he
> will
> accept patches to solve the problem gradually, or if he will just remove
> all
> defconfig files in 2.6.36.
> 
> In any case, all changes that make it possible to built more machine types
> and
> platform types in the same kernel are a step in the right direction.

I definitely think that one important step to achieve a multi platform build
is to detect the minimal arm_defconfig first, and then (most importantly
IMHO) proceed with trying to generate kernel modules of almost all
peripherals.

Many boards tend to be tested with just monolithic single-platform kernels,
and making things modular hasn't been addressed at all in some drivers (old
OMAP DSS code, for example).

Regards,
Sergio

> 
> --
> Regards,
> 
> Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Arm (vger)]     [ARM Kernel]     [ARM MSM]     [Linux Tegra]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Maemo Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux