Re: Please pull linux-2.6-mpc52xx.git

Hi Grant,

Grant Likely wrote:

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Grant Likely wrote:
 > The one part that I have a really strong opinion on is that there
 > should be a full featured mpc5200 defconfig for build testing.  Beyond
 > that (and if ojn can also be appeased) I can probably be convinced.  :-)

 Hi Grant,

 How to deal with a situation where I need a particular PHY driver from
 libphy compiled in the kernel for one of the MPC5200 boards? Adding it
 to mpc5200_defconfig doesn't seem like a right thing to do.

Why not?  mpc5200_defconfig is all about compile and runtime testing
on many platforms to make sure drivers play well together.  I have no
problem adding more drivers to the mpc5200 defconfig.  (In fact, I
encourage it).

quoted

 How to
 convince you (and appease ojn) to accept a patch that adds a
 board-specific defconfig that only slightly differs from
 mpc5200_defconfig? :)

I'm thinking 'optimized' defconfigs should go into a subdirectory.

This requires a change to the top-level Makefile and shepherding this
change upstream. Could we perhaps try to avoid this by having optimized
defconfigs in the form of, for example:

arch/powerpc/configs/tqm5200_opt_defconfig
arch/powerpc/configs/motionpro_opt_defconfig

Or, to signify what is the base defconfig:

arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_tqm5200_defconfig
arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_motionpro_defconfig

or even:

arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_opt_tqm5200_defconfig
arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_opt_motionpro_defconfig

Would patch adding an optimized _defconfig along these lines be accepted?

Regards,
Bartlomiej