Re: Contents of the "origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2" branch. Help with testing wanted.

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 13-08-09 00:09, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Phil Blundell skrev:
>> On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 14:33 +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>>> Dnia wtorek, 11 sierpnia 2009 o 20:55:00 Ulf Samuelsson napisał(a):
>>>> I introduced the possibility to build linux using
>>>> make<board>_defconfig, instead of using a
>>>> defconfig in a board directory under linux.
>>>> LINUX26_DEFCONFIG needs to be defined.
>>> Interesting, will check. I see a problem anyway because linux_*.bb
>>> recipes by default use defconfig as part of SRC_URI. But we can use
>>> empty file to satisfy it.
>>
>> We've tried this kind of thing before on various platforms and it
>> generally seems to be a losing proposition.  Even if your kernel sources
>> are targetting just a single MACHINE, the kernel isn't quite modular
>> enough yet that you can truly have a "one size fits all" configuration
>> to suit all DISTROs.
>>
>> Also, if you are relying on the defconfig from upstream, any
>> configuration change at all requires that you either patch it, or
>> re-issue the upstream tarball.  Neither of those are as convenient as
>> just editing the defconfig locally in OE.
>>
>> So, in general, I think you're probably better off sticking with the
>> "defconfig in FILESDIR" paradigm.  That's not to say I'm completely
>> opposed to adding the option to use the one from upstream, but I think
>> you would need to be a bit careful about where you use it.
>>
>> p.
>
> Initially, this is to allow easy test of a new board where a config
> exists in the kernel.

You're saying that a 'cp /path/to/source/linux/arch/arm/configs/foo 
/OE/org.oe.dev/recipes/linux/linux/foo/defconfig' is too hard?

regards,

Koen