Re: Alternative for defconfig

[Sid Boyce <sboyce@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 11/06/10 16:14, Gadiyar, Anand wrote:
> Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> On Friday 11 June 2010 16:55:07 Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nagarajan, Rajkumar wrote:
>>>>> 1. What is the alternative way of submitting defconfig changes/files to
>>>>
>>>> LO?
>>>
>>> I don't think defconfig changes are prohibited now. If I understand
>>> correctly, Linus just hates the fact that there is a big percentage of
>>> patches for defconfigs. Maybe he wants us to hold these, and better
>>> provide higher percentage of actual code changes.
>>>
>>> What about holding defconfig changes in a separate branch, and just send
>>> them for upstream once in a while, specially if there's a big quantity of
>>> them in the queue?
>>>
>>> IMHO, defconfigs are just meant to make us life easier, but changes to them
>>> should _never_ be a fix/solution to any problem, and therefore I understand
>>> that those aren't a priority over regressions.
>>
>> My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, 
>> unless someone can convince him not to. Board-specific defconfigs won't be 
>> allowed anymore, the number of defconfigs needs to be reduced drastically 
>> (ideally to one or two only).
>>
> 
> There is some good work going on on the linux-arm-kernel mailing list to
> cut down heavily the ARM defconfigs. Would be good to join that discussion.
> 
> For OMAP, I suppose maintaining omap1_defconfig and omap3_defconfig would
> suffice to cover all OMAPs?
> 
> - Anand

If I use omap3_beagle_defconfig instead of omap3_defconfig HID is
missing from the .config and doesn't show up for selection in "make
config".
Is this an oversight or is omap3_defconfig the proper one to use.
Regards
Sid.
-- 
Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot
Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support
Specialist, Cricket Coach
Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks