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

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

Hi,

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 ?

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148102838302106&w=2

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.

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics