Re: ARM defconfig files

[Daniel Walker]

On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 19:10 +0100, Russell King wrote:

> config STD_CONFIG
> 	bool "Enable me to generate a standard configuration for your platform"
> 
> and then have platforms conditionally select everything that's
> appropriate for their use.  That provides a way to avoid the ages old
> issue of select forcing options on, but the user still being presented
> with the option and being told the only possible value for it is 'y'.
> 
> And yes, it _is_ necessary - because if you want to turn off something
> on the platform - eg, you're not using MMC and MMC fails to build -
> you can still end up with a working configuration at the end of the
> day.

Check out the SAT solver link I quoted in the prior email.. That sounds
like a really interesting solution. The defconfigs would ultimately hold
just what's unique to a given board, then the solver would figure out
what to else to enable just from those unique properties.

So we would still have defconfigs , but they would not have loads of
duplication like they do now.

I don't see how we can do without defconfigs altogether tho. I mean , if
you want to run a Beagle board or a Nexus one we can't just give the
users a slim ARM config and let them troll through 1000's of drivers
trying to find just those ones that work on their given board.

Daniel

--
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/