Hi, On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 09:12, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 05:40:35PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 16:54, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 08:00:28AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 at 16:29, Jason Kacines <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Add support to config fragments (.config) located in the /board > > > > > directory. This will allow only base defconfigs to live in /configs > > > > > and > > > > > > > > Does this mean defconfigs? > > > > > > This looks like it would cover defconfig files too, but the initial > > > motivation is config fragments. See > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ > > > for another example. > > > > > > > > all fragments to live in their respective device directory in > > > > > /board/.. > > > > > > > > Why do we want this? The patch should have a motivation. > > > > > > I've asked a few people to look in to this because we have a lot of > > > cases today of N _defconfig files where we could really instead have 1 > > > _defconfig file and N config fragment files. But I do not want them > > > living in the top level configs directory as that will get even more > > > unmanageable. > > > > OK I see, thank you. The patch still needs this motivation though. > > So you're saying you want the message re-worded?
Yes, to explain why. Could we also get some docs in doc/build/gcc.rst or similar? > > > > What's not in this patch (and not an ask at this point) is figuring out > > > how buildman could handle "foo_defconfig bar.config" as the required > > > config target. > > > > Indeed. Also, should they appear in the boards.cfg list? > > I doubt it? I'm not sure yet how we address getting buildman to know > about valid additional combinations. Take the example of something like: > som_vendor_carrier_defconfig + som_vendor_imx7_som.config + > emmc_boot_instead.config + customer_production_tweaks.config > > How would you want buildman to know about that? Does it even really need > to, on the other hand? And that's not I think an uncommon example, it's > just splitting colibri_imx7_emmc_defconfig in to how it would be used by > someone taking that carrier+som to production, with their own > touchscreen and a few other tweaks in the dtb that needs to be passed to > linux. Or the mnt reform with whatever SOM/COM you happen to have for > it. Well firstly we should only worry about things that are in-tree. The thing is, if we don't validate that the configs at least build, then someone could change a config (anywhere in Kconfig or in a 'base' defconfig) and break the build for these 'add-on' configs. Also if there is no record of what fragments can be built with what, it could get awfully confusing. I would suggest an interface where you can query which fragments are available for a board, and that buildman support building them. For that to work, we need some sort of structure. For example the config fragment could have a line listing the defconfig / .config filename it is intended to augment. Regards, Simon
