From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: plagnioj@jcrosoft.com (Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:18:59 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] at91: support for eco920
In-Reply-To: <20091023182023.GB3440@pengutronix.de>
References: <20091021084826.GA29667@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<1256115527-20635-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
	<20091021151917.GE19714@game.jcrosoft.org>
	<20091023121152.GB1821@pengutronix.de>
	<20091023175629.GB29430@game.jcrosoft.org>
	<20091023182023.GB3440@pengutronix.de>
Message-ID: <20091023181859.GC29430@game.jcrosoft.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 20:20 Fri 23 Oct     , Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 07:56:29PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > On 14:11 Fri 23 Oct     , Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > > On 10:58 Wed 21 Oct     , Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > > CONFIG_MACH_ECO920 is enabled in at91rm9200dk_defconfig.  The name is
> > > > > wrong, but this is better than adding another defconfig or don't get
> > > > > compile coverage at all./
> > > > in this case it will be better to have a generic rm9200 defconfig
> > > right, but imho this shouldn't stop my patch.
> > rename at91rm9200dk_defconfig to at91rm9200_defconfig will make the patch
> > better and will avoid this comment about wrong name defconfig
> Hm, this is only slightly better:
> 
> 	linux-2.6$ grep CONFIG_ARCH_AT91RM9200=y arch/arm/configs/* | wc -l
> 	12
> 
> Andrew, thoughts?  Are you interested at all in reducing the number of
> defconfigs for at91?
Reducing the number of defconfig is not a good idea as each defconfig is
optimized for each board
but have a generic one will be a good idea to be able to build a generic
kernel for all rm9200 and maybe sameway for the ather at91 socs

Best Regards,
J.