On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 12:30 -0700, John Stultz wrote: > The difficulty is that as Tixy earlier pointed out, are that the LT > kernel trees are mainline based, and thus aren't based off of something > that would contain the base/distro/board config fragments. > > One approach we might be able to use is if the board defconfigs really > are minimal, and restricted in scope to only the board options, we could > switch the merge order (board/distro/base). This way the LT's "additive" > defconfig can be used (from arch/arm/configs/ ) and we can still also > get consistent generic options as well.
The mainline defconfigs aren't minimal in the sense we want, they include things like file-systems and networking options so somebody can build a usable kernel, and I think it's sensible to keep it that way. For Linaro's purposes we would need a new board config. We could make that minimal, but we get back to the idea that topic branches which change configs would need to sit on top of the topic with this config. Perhaps that is something we can live with if a directory-of-config-fragments approach is deemed undesirable. It's a pity that the title of the thread possibly means no one from other LTs are reading. (Probably a bit late to change it now and get noticed.) -- Tixy _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
