On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

Dne P? 4. ?ervna 2010 03:35:28 Eric Miao napsal(a):

quoted

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Ryan Mallon [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

Dne P? 4. ?ervna 2010 01:33:35 Ryan Mallon napsal(a):

quoted

Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Ryan Mallon wrote:

quoted

Is it worth being a bit proactive and getting rid of some of them in
advance? Things like spear3[012]0_defconfig are basically identically
except for the board type. Combining all three of those would remove
1500 lines of code.

Please go ahead with a patch.

Hmm, not as easy as I thought. The three boards cannot be built into a
single kernel since the arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear3[012]0.c files all
extern a bunch of structs which have naming conflicts.

It does look possible to rewrite that code so that all three boards can
be built into a single kernel. I can try and put together a patch, but
I don't have any hardware to test with.

The at91 is actually in a similar state, where only one of the
at91sam9260, at91sam9g45, etc can be selected. Again, it should be
possible to rework the code so that most of the different cpus can be
built into a single kernel. I'm sure other mach's are in a simliar
state. Fixing these where possible would allow us to have single
defconfigs per mach directory and reduce code churn, which is what
Linus is really complaining about.

I just tested, PXA (mach-pxa) probably can be compiled into single
kernel supporting all the boards.

Yes, IIRC Russell and Eric did a huge amount of work to get pxa into
that state.

ryan at okiwi:configs$ grep "ARCH_PXA=y" * | wc -l
25

Can we remove/combine some of those?

Definitely. In the end of the day, I would like to see pxa_defconfig only.
But at the moment, I need every board maintainer to review their defconfig
and combine them as much as possible. E.g.

palmte_defconfig ? palmtt_defconfig ? palmz71_defconfig ?palmz72_defconfig

This is OMAP stuff, not PXA. But yeah, these could be combined. I don't have
these devices available at the moment (and it might be a problem getting them
into operational state).

quoted

I'd guess can simply combine into one. (Marek, feel free to do it)

I'd more like a step to step work instead of a brutely removal of all
defconfig, not sure if Linus is going to buy in.

For those sub-arch which cannot simply compile a single kernel for multiple
boards, s5p* as previously mentioned, I suggest not to introduce any new
defconfig until the problem is solved.

Also, we are now working on a single kernel for multiple sub-arch (at least
what Nicolas and I am doing now, and welcome to join us). It's tough (the
way to handle different phys_offset is only the tip of the iceberg) and
seems now more and more necessary. so hopefully by the end of the day, we
may possible end up with only very few defconfig.

How long is your day now ?

In the end of the day, sorry, it's a very long. You know English is not my
tongue ;-)