From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marek.vasut@gmail.com (Marek Vasut) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 03:50:36 +0200 Subject: Heads up: Linus plans to kill ARM defconfigs In-Reply-To: <201006040337.10593.marek.vasut@gmail.com> References: <20100603192459.GA9169@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201006040337.10593.marek.vasut@gmail.com> Message-ID: <201006040350.36944.marek.vasut@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 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 ?