From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:33:40 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] arm: mvebu: update defconfig with 3.7 changes
In-Reply-To: <20121024161611.659b0989@skate>
References: <1350980269-6587-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
 <5087A94E.4000706@free-electrons.com> <20121024161611.659b0989@skate>
Message-ID: <201210262033.41250.arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wednesday 24 October 2012, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:39:42 +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > On 10/23/2012 10:17 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > The split of 370 and XP into two Kconfig options and the multiplatform
> > > kernel support has changed a few Kconfig symbols, so let's update the
> > > mvebu_defconfig file with the latest changes.
> > 
> > Indeed this patch fixes the mvebu_defconfig which was broken.
> > But as now mvebu is part of multi_v7_defconfig, shouldn't we just
> > removed mvebu_defconfig ?
> 
> I think for now, SoC family specific defconfig files are still
> accepted, so I'd prefer to keep mvebu_defconfig around. Multiplatform
> is nice for users, but I prefer to build a mvebu-only kernel when I'm
> doing kernel development.

I'd certainly like to see that patch get merged. Should I just apply it
to the fixes branch?

	Arnd