From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-gw0-f51.google.com (mail-gw0-f51.google.com [74.125.83.51]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40B7B7D61 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:56:57 +1000 (EST) Received: by gwj15 with SMTP id 15so532512gwj.38 for ; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:56:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca In-Reply-To: References: <20100603211755.7822.66.stgit@angua> From: Grant Likely Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:56:35 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/5200: Update defconfigs To: Stephen Neuendorffer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: > It seems to me like what's confused in the defconfigs is two concepts: > 1) The requirements of a platform (what options must be set and must not > be set) > 2) The guarantee that a particular config was known to work at some > point in time. I can't speak for other maintainers; but #2 is not something I worry about w.r.t. defconfigs. That guarantee is pretty meaningless for anything but an exact version of the kernel tree. > The first could allow you to drop 99% of the options (I think that this > mainly what Linus objects to) That, and the fact that the current files are machine-generated as opposed to something written/edited/maintained by a human. > The second is better handled with testing anyway (assuming that all of > the unmentioned options are, in fact, unset) Yup. g.