Re: [RFC PATCH 15/23] arm: use kconfig fragments for ARCH_PXA defconfigs (part 1)
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Date: Mon Dec 12 2016 - 07:11:29 EST
On Saturday, December 10, 2016 10:46:23 AM Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> 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
Sorry about that.
> fragments was already discussed somewhere, could you point me to that please ?
I've put the patches on hold for now after the feedback from Olof & Arnd.
> 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
Thank you for your comments.
Samsung R&D Institute Poland