Re: [RFC/PATCH] powerpc/bootwrapper: Allow user to specify additional default targets

[Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 07:34:23 -0600
"Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 00:51:44 -0600
> > "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Anyone had a chance to look at this?  I think this could be used to
> >> eliminate a lot of the platform specific default targets in
> >> arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile by moving them into the defconfigs.  Josh,
> >> Kumar, what are your thoughts?
> >
> > So for cases like Kilauea/Haleakala or Bamboo/Yosemite, you would
> > specify Yosemite in the bamboo defconfig?  Or?
> 
> If they share a defconfig, then yes, that is what I'm thinking about...
> 
> > I actually sort of prefer having a separate defconfig/CONFIG_YOSEMITE
> > (as an example) because it's much easier for an end user to figure out
> > if the board is supported or not.
> 
> ...however, these don't have to disappear if you prefer them.

Right.

> > I could be totally misunderstanding the intention of this patch though,
> > so I'll stop rambling and wait to see what the use case is.
> 
> Specifically the case I'm thinking of is when a user of a Xilinx FPGA
> drops a new .dts file into arch/powerpc/boot/dts (say
> 'super-sexy-platform.dts').  However, instead of modifying the
> Makefile or always typing 'make simpleImage.super-sexy-platform', then
> can add 'simpleImage.super-sexy-platform' to their defconfig which I
> can see being easier for someone to get their head around.

Yeah, I thought about the Virtex case with the differing bitstreams
after I sent out my original question.  For purposes like that, this
seems like a great fit.  For truly discrete boards, I prefer discrete
defconfigs.

So overall I see value in the patch.  If nobody else has objections,
then it's fine with me.

josh