From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9D191A0030 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:13:41 +1000 (AEST) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0127.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 662451402E1 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:13:39 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: <1429244000.32545.51.camel@freescale.com> Subject: Re: new way of writing defconfigs for freescale's powerpc platforms From: Scott Wood To: Michael Ellerman Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:13:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1429232060.22546.7.camel@ellerman.id.au> References: <1429232060.22546.7.camel@ellerman.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Lijun Pan , Richard Schmitt , "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 10:54 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 21:52 +0000, Lijun Pan wrote: > > Hi Maintainers, > > > > We have a proposal for writing the defconfigs for freescale's powperpc platforms in a new way. > > Can you take a look and provide some feedback? > > > > You know currently we have mpc85xx_defconfig, corenet32_defconfig, bsc913x_defconfig, *fman*_defconfig, etc. > > We are going to extract some common parts from the existing defconfigs, and name it, say, fsl_basic_defconfig. > > Then, we could create some defconfigs targeting specific features or specific platforms. > > Say, features specific: kvm_defconfig, fman_defconfig, etc. > > Platforms specific: p1_defconfig, p2_defcongfig, p4_defconfig, t1_defconfig, t2_defconfig, t2_defconfig, b4_defconfig, etc > > When we want to make a kernel image for p1 platform, > > Using the following steps: > > > > make ./scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh arch/powerpc/configs/fsl_basic_config p1_defconfig > > make > > > > What do you think of this new approach? > > I don't like that the user has to manually run merge_config.sh. > > How does a user even know that it's an option? > > It also breaks scripts that auto build the kernel, which expect to be able to do: > > $ make foo_defconfig > $ make > > Scripts like mine for example :) > > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/head/8734/ > > What I'd be happy with is something that does merge_config under the covers. So > a user still runs 'make fsl_plat_foo_defconfig', but under the covers it does a > merge config. > > kvmconfig and tinyconfig are implemented that way already, so with a bit more > work hopefully you can do that for arch configs also. kvmconfig and tinyconfig are still separate user-visible steps to be applied after running a base defconfig. For breaking a platform defconfig into components, we could do something like this in arch/powerpc/Makefile: # Can't call mergeconfig directly as it isn't defined at this point define domerge @$(MAKE) -f $(srctree)/scripts/kconfig/Makefile $(1).config endef corenet64_smp_defconfig: corenet64_basic_defconfig $(call domerge,smp) $(call domerge,altivec) $(call domerge,corenet_drivers) $(call domerge,embedded_misc) # filesystems etc And this in scripts/kconfig/Makefile: %.config: $(call mergeconfig,$*) One issue with this is that we'd lose the ability to use savedefconfig (at least without manual manipulation of the results) to maintain the defconfigs/fragments. -Scott