Heads up: Linus plans to kill ARM defconfigs

[marek.vasut@gmail.com (Marek Vasut)]

Dne P? 4. ?ervna 2010 03:37:10 Marek Vasut napsal(a):
> Dne P? 4. ?ervna 2010 03:35:28 Eric Miao napsal(a):
> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Ryan Mallon <ryan@bluewatersys.com> wrote:
> > > Marek Vasut wrote:
> > >> Dne P? 4. ?ervna 2010 01:33:35 Ryan Mallon napsal(a):
> > >>> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > >>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> > >>>>> Is it worth being a bit proactive and getting rid of some of them
> > >>>>> in advance? Things like spear3[012]0_defconfig are basically
> > >>>>> identically except for the board type. Combining all three of
> > >>>>> those would remove 1500 lines of code.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Please go ahead with a patch.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Hmm, not as easy as I thought. The three boards cannot be built into
> > >>> a single kernel since the arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear3[012]0.c
> > >>> files all extern a bunch of structs which have naming conflicts.
> > >>> 
> > >>> It does look possible to rewrite that code so that all three boards
> > >>> can be built into a single kernel. I can try and put together a
> > >>> patch, but I don't have any hardware to test with.
> > >>> 
> > >>> The at91 is actually in a similar state, where only one of the
> > >>> at91sam9260, at91sam9g45, etc can be selected. Again, it should be
> > >>> possible to rework the code so that most of the different cpus can be
> > >>> built into a single kernel. I'm sure other mach's are in a simliar
> > >>> state. Fixing these where possible would allow us to have single
> > >>> defconfigs per mach directory and reduce code churn, which is what
> > >>> Linus is really complaining about.
> > >> 
> > >> I just tested, PXA (mach-pxa) probably can be compiled into single
> > >> kernel supporting all the boards.
> > > 
> > > Yes, IIRC Russell and Eric did a huge amount of work to get pxa into
> > > that state.
> > > 
> > > ryan at okiwi:configs$ grep "ARCH_PXA=y" * | wc -l
> > > 25
> > > 
> > > Can we remove/combine some of those?
> > 
> > Definitely. In the end of the day, I would like to see pxa_defconfig
> > only. But at the moment, I need every board maintainer to review their
> > defconfig and combine them as much as possible. E.g.
> > 
> > palmte_defconfig   palmtt_defconfig   palmz71_defconfig 
> > palmz72_defconfig
> 

OMAP: palmte_defconfig, palmtt_defconfig, palmz71_defconfig
PXA: palmz72_defconfig ... the rest of palmxx_defconfig

Sorry about the confusion

> This is OMAP stuff, not PXA. But yeah, these could be combined. I don't
> have these devices available at the moment (and it might be a problem
> getting them into operational state).
> 
> > I'd guess can simply combine into one. (Marek, feel free to do it)
> > 
> > I'd more like a step to step work instead of a brutely removal of all
> > defconfig, not sure if Linus is going to buy in.
> > 
> > For those sub-arch which cannot simply compile a single kernel for
> > multiple boards, s5p* as previously mentioned, I suggest not to
> > introduce any new defconfig until the problem is solved.
> > 
> > Also, we are now working on a single kernel for multiple sub-arch (at
> > least what Nicolas and I am doing now, and welcome to join us). It's
> > tough (the way to handle different phys_offset is only the tip of the
> > iceberg) and seems now more and more necessary. so hopefully by the end
> > of the day, we may possible end up with only very few defconfig.
> 
> How long is your day now ?