Re: Fix allnoconfig on arm with small tweak to kconfig?

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 07:51:19PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > Basically, there's a fair amount of conditions under which Kconfig
> > fails to perform reasonably, and these (little used) targets are
> > an example of that.
> > 
> > If you want something that's guaranteed to work, use one of the
> > per-platform default configurations.  Nothing else carries any
> > guarantee what so ever on ARM.
> > 
> > (Also, I have no interest in all*config myself so even if someone
> > does fix it, chances are it'll get broken again.  I believe that
> > the concept of all*config is a fundamentally broken concept for an
> > architecture with numerous platform configurations.)
> 
> what about providing a reasonable (not necessarily useful)
> configuration for a minimal arm setup (maybe for each endianess)
> and one for a maximal (read: as many as possible) options
> selected which - and this is the important part - are known
> and supposed to compile (regardless if they make sense or are
> used in actual systems)?

See arch/arm/configs/* for many configuration examples.  They are all 
separate ARM targets and usually a given config enables as much 
sensible options 
as possible for that target.  It seems to me that using
'make neponset_defconfig && make all' is a relatively good configuration 
to test toolchain regressions, at least for an ARMv4 build.

If you need, say, a minimal test configurations with the least selected 
options as possible, I don't think anyone would object including such a 
default config file.

> if this isn't in _your_ interest, then maybe some specific
> (considered representative) system defaults can be used instead

Right.


Nicolas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/