From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robert.jarzmik@free.fr (Robert Jarzmik) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 10:46:23 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH 15/23] arm: use kconfig fragments for ARCH_PXA defconfigs (part 1) In-Reply-To: <1481027938-31831-16-git-send-email-b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> (Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz's message of "Tue, 06 Dec 2016 13:38:50 +0100") References: <1481027938-31831-1-git-send-email-b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> <1481027938-31831-16-git-send-email-b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> Message-ID: <87a8c415hs.fsf@belgarion.home> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz writes: > Replace [lpd270,lubbock,mainstone,pxa255-idp]_defconfig-s with > a Makefile target using merge_config. > > The patch was verified with doing: > > $ make [lpd270,...]_defconfig > $ make savedefconfig > > and comparing resulting defconfig files (before/after the patch). > > Cc: Daniel Mack > Cc: Haojian Zhuang > Cc: Robert Jarzmik > Cc: Cyril Bur > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Hi Bartolomiej, It's a bit hard to judge without any context for me, especially I'm receiving patches 11 to 21 but not the others. I suppose the advantage of defconfig fragments was already discussed somewhere, could you point me to that please ? One small thing that could be improved is the "pxa_basic*" names. I think pxa_basic1 is "pxa_refboards" or something like that, as these are the initial reference designs as far as I know from Intel and validation vehicles rather that form factors. In the same way, pxa_basic2 is rather "pxa_sharpsl" as these are sharp designs. And pxa_basic3 looks like Motorola platforms, so "pxa_motorola" perhaps ? I noticed imote2.config ended up based on pxa_basic3, while I would have expected it to be based on pxa_basic1 as it looks like a reference board to me ... Cheers. -- Robert