From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pgsellmann@portner-elektronik.at (Peter Gsellmann) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:00:29 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4] ARM: AT91: add board support for Pcontrol_G20 In-Reply-To: References: <1286466086.4306.41.camel@aspire.localdomain> <20101008123407.GB30252@game.jcrosoft.org> <1286550644.21584.34.camel@aspire.localdomain> <1286787761.7800.11.camel@aspire.localdomain> <1286792568.7800.19.camel@aspire.localdomain> <20101013131515.GC11087@game.jcrosoft.org> <1286979531.7165.9.camel@aspire.localdomain> <4CB71813.6060601@atmel.com> <20101014151451.GB23434@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20101015015016.GD11087@game.jcrosoft.org> Message-ID: <1287388829.1450.21.camel@aspire.localdomain> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Am Freitag, den 15.10.2010, 18:31 +0200 schrieb avictor.za at gmail.com: > hi, > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > wrote: > > On 16:14 Thu 14 Oct , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:47:47PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/pcontrol_g20_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/pcontrol_g20_defconfig > >> > > new file mode 100644 > >> > >> Is it really necessary to have another platform specific defconfig rather > >> than grouping it together with other similar platforms? > > I'm working on it to merge the cpu and boards together hope to finish it > > before the end of the merge window > > What's the point of having a board supported by the kernel, if you > don't include a configuration file to actually make the board usable? > In this scenario, i (and all other board maintainers) have to test the merged defconfig on my board after the merge. If it fails, i have either to maintain a private version of defconfig :-( or to checkin the needed changes which triggers the same task for (n-1) board maintainers. Regards, Peter