From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from host.buserror.net (host.buserror.net [209.198.135.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC5A11A02DE for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:27:06 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: <1453904822.27129.44.camel@buserror.net> From: Scott Wood To: Alessio Igor Bogani , Kumar Gala Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:27:02 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1453904726.27129.42.camel@buserror.net> References: <1453904726.27129.42.camel@buserror.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Question about 86xx List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 08:25 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 10:24 +0100, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote: > > Hi Kumar, > > > > I'm wondering if we are allowed to put together configurations of the > > 86xx base systems (gef_ppc9a_defconfig, gef_sbc310_defconfig, > > gef_sbc610_defconfig, mpc8610_hpcd_defconfig, mpc8641_hpcn_defconfig > > and sbc8641d_defconfig) into the > > mpc86xx_defconfig/mpc86xx_smp_defconfig as like already done for 85xx > > ones. > > > > Thank you very much! > > Yes, that would be good. Also consider using config fragments like 85xx now does (and sharing fragments with 85xx where appropriate). -Scott