Re: [meta-fsl-arm-extra][PATCH] linux-boundary: enable some PCIe drivers

[Eric Nelson <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com>]

On 05/15/2013 12:51 AM, Eric Bénard wrote:
> Hi Otavio,
>
> Le Tue, 14 May 2013 17:22:35 -0300,
> Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
>> Can you take a look in Eric Benard patch?
>>
>> I think it'd be good to apply it in Boundary's GIT tree and sync it in
>> meta-fsl-arm.
>>
> this defconfig belongs to meta-fsl-arm-extra, not to Boundary's GIT
> tree.
>

Hi Eric and Otavio,

In general, I agree with Eric that the defconfig should belong to the
meta-fsl-arm-extra project, since there are (and should be) userspace
implications.

That said, I'm not really sure where Eric's headed by including somewhat
arbitrary PCIe devices. I'm not aware that these are commonly used and
could begin a slow march to allyesconfig. Do other users really want
to include support for PCIe 8250's, or is this just something important
for a project of yours?

I'm also hesitant to say that bringing in our defconfig is crucial.
There are important bits, like the inclusion of NAPI for ethernet
and single-touch for various multi-touch controllers, but there's
also likely some cruft that we pulled in from other Freescale designs
and that isn't useful in general.

Here's a good case in point:
	https://github.com/boundarydevices/linux-imx6/blob/boundary-imx_3.0.35_1.1.1/arch/arm/configs/nitrogen6x_defconfig#L136

We're including a light sensor that isn't present on our boards.

We're also including some PCIe drivers for things we happen
to be working on:
	https://github.com/boundarydevices/linux-imx6/commit/b6e4be8783d66e288bda17d18281bdcb2d95be62

My sense is that we all have particular needs for the kernel
configuration, and that one-size really doesn't fit all.

We'll be re-basing our kernel on the new 4.0.0 release from
Freescale very soon. For my part, I'll try to clean up our
defconfig in the process.

	https://community.freescale.com/docs/DOC-94809

Regards,


Eric