Hi On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 01:50:47PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I think Uwe could provide his script and add it to the kernel tree. > >> Then all architectures could benefit from it. Having the defconfig > >> files contain only those options which are different from the defaults > >> is certainly more readable, even on x86. > > > > Quite possible. But maintainers would need to be on the lookout of > > people actually using the script, and refusing to apply patches that > > re-introduce the whole big thing. > > I can (partially) speak for powerpc. If ARM uses this approach, then > I think we can do the same. After the defconfigs are trimmed, I > certainly won't pick up any more full defconfigs. I just restarted my script on the powerpc defconfigs basing on rc5, I assume they complete in a few days time. > Of course, I'm also operating under the assumption that this is a > temporary measure until one of the better solutions is implemented. ack > I > do suspect that the trimmed defconfigs will tend to be unstable and > will still require manual maintenance. I think the Kconfig fragments > approach is the most promising if the dependencies issue can be > solved. I don't understand what you mean with unstable here. They are sensible to changed defaults in the Kconfig files which you can consider to be good or bad. And ack, I like the Kconfig approach, too. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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
