From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 22:35:42 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH 00/23] arm: defconfigs: use kconfig fragments In-Reply-To: References: <1481027938-31831-1-git-send-email-b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> <8292218.3BDisRkZdU@wuerfel> Message-ID: <2155947.mOKhpZPiAn@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 1:14:02 PM CET Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > - A "debug" fragment would be nice, to turn on common options that > > add a lot of useful runtime checks at the expense of performance > > or code size. > > Hmm, some of these might work but several useful debug options (in > particular DEBUG_LL for early errors) are per-system/platform. I was thinking mostly of architecture-independent options, i.e. the stuff that is in lib/Kconfig.debug but isn't too expensive to be run in a regular test environment. Enabling those for a build/boot automation environment would be particularly useful as you'd catch more bugs that get introduced through a random patch. > > - A "distro" fragment that turns on all loadable modules that are > > enabled by common distributions (e.g. two or more of > > debian/fedora/opensuse/gentoo), to let you build a drop-in > > replacement kernel for a shipping distro. This would also allow > > the distros to strip their own config files and just specify > > whatever differs from the others. > > Keeping this in sync with the distro kernel could be a bit awkward > (and possibly churny). It would certainly need buy-in from distro maintainers. I've discussed this with Laura Abbott in the past, and she was interested in principle. Arnd