Hi, On Saturday, December 10, 2016 10:46:23 AM Robert Jarzmik wrote: > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > Cc: Haojian Zhuang <[email protected]> > > Cc: Robert Jarzmik <[email protected]> > > Cc: Cyril Bur <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]> > > 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
Sorry about that. > fragments was already discussed somewhere, could you point me to that please ? http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148102838302106&w=2 I've put the patches on hold for now after the feedback from Olof & Arnd. > 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 > ... Thank you for your comments. Best regards, -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics
