Re: [RFC PATCH 15/23] arm: use kconfig fragments for ARCH_PXA defconfigs (part 1)

From: Robert Jarzmik
Date: Sat Dec 10 2016 - 04:46:45 EST

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Replace [lpd270,lubbock,mainstone,pxa255-idp]_defconfig-s with
> a Makefile target using merge_config.
> The patch was verified with doing:
> $ make [lpd270,...]_defconfig
> $ make savedefconfig
> and comparing resulting defconfig files (before/after the patch).
> Cc: Daniel Mack <daniel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Cyril Bur <cyrilbur@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Bartolomiej,

It's a bit hard to judge without any context for me, especially I'm receiving
patches 11 to 21 but not the others. I suppose the advantage of defconfig
fragments was already discussed somewhere, could you point me to that please ?

One small thing that could be improved is the "pxa_basic*" names.

I think pxa_basic1 is "pxa_refboards" or something like that, as these are the
initial reference designs as far as I know from Intel and validation vehicles
rather that form factors.

In the same way, pxa_basic2 is rather "pxa_sharpsl" as these are sharp designs.

And pxa_basic3 looks like Motorola platforms, so "pxa_motorola" perhaps ?

I noticed imote2.config ended up based on pxa_basic3, while I would have
expected it to be based on pxa_basic1 as it looks like a reference board to me