Hi, On Tuesday, December 06, 2016 11:03:34 AM Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This RFC patchset starts convertion of ARM defconfigs to use kconfig > > fragments and dynamically generate defconfigs. The goals of this > > work are to: > > You don't provide any motivation as to why this is better. As far as I
Benefits are: - no code duplication (this initial patchset alone removes ~1700 lines from defconfigs without any change in functionality) - prevention of "multi" defconfigs (i.e. multi_v7_defconfig) going out of sync with "SoC-family" ones (i.e. exynos_defconfig) - there will be just one place to update when changing things - possibility to add support for more optimized defconfigs (i.e. board specific ones) in the future without duplicating the code - making it easier to define arch specific parts of defconfigs in the future if we decide on doing it (i.e. we may want to enable things like CONFIG_SYSVIPC for all defconfigs) > am concerned it'll just be a mess. > > So: > > Nack. So much nack. I really don't want to see a proliferation of > config fragments like this. > > I had a feeling it was a bad idea to pick up that one line config > fragment before, since it opened the door for this kind of mess. :( Like I said in the cover-letter I'm not satisfied with the current patches and they have much room for improvement. However I see that you don't like the idea itself... :( Best regards, -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics
