Hello, On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:25:35 +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> That means for building of our toolchain we'll need to have > separately stored "defconfigs" in some form. Let's see what Anton says on > that :) > > And regardless of what mr Anton says having off-the-tree defconfigs is not > the best idea > because with time options will go in and out and occasionally we'll have > outdated > defconfigs. What would they be off-tree? What I meant is that when you look at the per architecture defconfigs, they are also all exactly the same, except for the TARGET_<foo> option. So instead of having this big duplication, my suggestion is to get rid of architecture-specific defconfig, and just have a few architecture-independent defconfig, addressing common use cases (such as "minimal" and "feature full"). Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
