Re: Contents of the "origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2" branch. Help with testing wanted.

From: Ulf Samuelsson <ulf.samuelsson@atmel.com>
To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: Contents of the "origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2" branch. Help with testing wanted.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:09:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A833D9F.1090608@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1250092579.12282.73.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com>

Phil Blundell skrev:
> On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 14:33 +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>> Dnia wtorek, 11 sierpnia 2009 o 20:55:00 Ulf Samuelsson napisał(a):
>>> I introduced the possibility to build linux using
>>> make <board>_defconfig, instead of using a
>>> defconfig in a board directory under linux.
>>> LINUX26_DEFCONFIG needs to be defined.
>> Interesting, will check. I see a problem anyway because linux_*.bb 
>> recipes by default use defconfig as part of SRC_URI. But we can use 
>> empty file to satisfy it.
> 
> We've tried this kind of thing before on various platforms and it
> generally seems to be a losing proposition.  Even if your kernel sources
> are targetting just a single MACHINE, the kernel isn't quite modular
> enough yet that you can truly have a "one size fits all" configuration
> to suit all DISTROs.
> 
> Also, if you are relying on the defconfig from upstream, any
> configuration change at all requires that you either patch it, or
> re-issue the upstream tarball.  Neither of those are as convenient as
> just editing the defconfig locally in OE.
> 
> So, in general, I think you're probably better off sticking with the
> "defconfig in FILESDIR" paradigm.  That's not to say I'm completely
> opposed to adding the option to use the one from upstream, but I think
> you would need to be a bit careful about where you use it.
> 
> p.

Initially, this is to allow easy test of a new board where a config
exists in the kernel.
When there is a configured/tested board, then there will be a defconfig.
Long term plan would make sure that the board defconfig is optimized for
openembedded.

I really don't like calling the stuff "defconfig" though.
Much rather call it "linux-2.6.30.2-at91sam9263nf.config"
or similar so I can tell what it is all about...

Also, why are we copying defconfig to the toplevel.
Why not copy to arch/<ARCH>/config/<BOARD>_defconfig
do the make <BOARD>_defconfig and then SED the contents?

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson