From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:25:33 +0100 Subject: [uclibc-ng-devel] [PATCH] ARC: Enable getpt() support in ARC defconfigs In-Reply-To: <1488392734.4659.54.camel@synopsys.com> References: <1488308547-10114-1-git-send-email-vzakhar@synopsys.com> <20170301162459.5d23c09e@free-electrons.com> <1488392734.4659.54.camel@synopsys.com> List-ID: Message-ID: <20170301212533.6ddcfc0f@free-electrons.com> To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org Hello, On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:25:35 +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > That means for building of our toolchain we'll need to have > separately stored "defconfigs" in some form. Let's see what Anton says on that :) > > And regardless of what mr Anton says having off-the-tree defconfigs is not the best idea > because with time options will go in and out and occasionally we'll have outdated > defconfigs. What would they be off-tree? What I meant is that when you look at the per architecture defconfigs, they are also all exactly the same, except for the TARGET_ option. So instead of having this big duplication, my suggestion is to get rid of architecture-specific defconfig, and just have a few architecture-independent defconfig, addressing common use cases (such as "minimal" and "feature full"). Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com