On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:57 -0600, Emil Medve wrote: > Hello Scott, > > > On 11/12/2013 04:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote: > >> mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. > >> Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into > >> mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan <lijun....@freescale.com> > >> --- > >> arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 > >> ---------------------------- > >> arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ > >> arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ > >> 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) > >> delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig > > > > Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally > > get datapath support upstream? That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx > > config just for this one chip. > > Yes. But for mpc85xx_/smp_defconfig the datapath support shouldn't be > enabled by default given that just one SoC in that family has the > datapath (and we don't plan to put it in another e500v2 based SoC). For > regression/automation purposes config fragments should be used
Is there any way to specify a meta-config for p1023 (or e500v2-dpaa or whatever) that says to combine mpc85xx_smp_defconfig with a dpaa fragment? Do we have any config fragments in the tree so far? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev