Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnier...@samsung.com> writes: > Replace [lpd270,lubbock,mainstone,pxa255-idp]_defconfig-s with > a Makefile target using merge_config. > > The patch was verified with doing: > > $ make [lpd270,...]_defconfig > $ make savedefconfig > > and comparing resulting defconfig files (before/after the patch). > > Cc: Daniel Mack <dan...@zonque.org> > Cc: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhu...@gmail.com> > Cc: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarz...@free.fr> > Cc: Cyril Bur <cyril...@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnier...@samsung.com>
Hi Bartolomiej, It's a bit hard to judge without any context for me, especially I'm receiving patches 11 to 21 but not the others. I suppose the advantage of defconfig fragments was already discussed somewhere, could you point me to that please ? One small thing that could be improved is the "pxa_basic*" names. I think pxa_basic1 is "pxa_refboards" or something like that, as these are the initial reference designs as far as I know from Intel and validation vehicles rather that form factors. In the same way, pxa_basic2 is rather "pxa_sharpsl" as these are sharp designs. And pxa_basic3 looks like Motorola platforms, so "pxa_motorola" perhaps ? I noticed imote2.config ended up based on pxa_basic3, while I would have expected it to be based on pxa_basic1 as it looks like a reference board to me ... Cheers. -- Robert
