Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> schrieb am So., 24. Nov. 2024, 17:17: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:45:50PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > We do not actually test the code. > > Scanning for Amiga partitions of the sandbox is extremely slow, > > especially on the partially implemented USB device. > > > > For build testing the other sandbox defconfigs are good enough. > > > > Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> > > --- > > v2: > > new patch > > --- > > configs/sandbox_defconfig | 1 - > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/configs/sandbox_defconfig b/configs/sandbox_defconfig > > index 718e4a8283c..683888f238f 100644 > > --- a/configs/sandbox_defconfig > > +++ b/configs/sandbox_defconfig > > @@ -142,7 +142,6 @@ CONFIG_CMD_SQUASHFS=y > > CONFIG_CMD_MTDPARTS=y > > CONFIG_CMD_STACKPROTECTOR_TEST=y > > CONFIG_MAC_PARTITION=y > > -CONFIG_AMIGA_PARTITION=y > > CONFIG_OF_CONTROL=y > > CONFIG_OF_LIVE=y > > CONFIG_ENV_IS_NOWHERE=y > > This means we don't do static analysis on the code anymore either, which > isn't good, in theory. In specifics, this is fine since the code rarely > changes. But I wonder instead if we're timing out too quickly now? Or if > we should have but weren't timing out before, but that's now been fixed? >
There are still enough other sandbox defconfigs which build with AMIGA_PRTITION. As we don't have any real boards using it, should the Amiga partition support be removed? Best regards Heinrich > -- > Tom >
