From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:46:55 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v2 20/23] ARM: config: Add a multi_v5_defconfig
In-Reply-To: <3111881.Wp1d8VNNp3@wuerfel>
References: <1392459621-24003-1-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch>
 <1392459621-24003-21-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch>
 <3111881.Wp1d8VNNp3@wuerfel>
Message-ID: <20140217234655.GK7862@titan.lakedaemon.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 03:03:45PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 15 February 2014 11:20:18 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > To allow regression build testing of multi v5 systems, add a
> > multi_v5_defconfig, similar to the multi_v7_defconfig. This is based
> > on kirkwood_defconfig, but with a few other boards added which claim
> > to be MULTI_v5.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> 
> How about making this a multi_v4_v5_defconfig? We have a much smaller
> number of v4/v4t platforms (moxart, i.MX1) that are multiplatform
> capable or could besome so in the future (clps711x, gemini,
> at91rm9200, some s3c24xx, omap15xx, integrator) compared to the
> multitude of v5 platforms, so it might not be useful to start a
> separate multi_v4_defconfig.
> 
> OTOH if there is a significant performance impact in enabling CPU_32v4
> and CPU_32v4T, we probably want to keep them separate.
> 
> Any opinions?

Other than ixp4xx, (nslu2, old gateworks boards) I'm hard pressed to
think of anything v4* still in the wild possibly wanting to use mainline
kernels.

I'd prefer to do multi_v5_defconfig and revise later if we find the
extraordinary circumstance.

thx,

Jason.