On 2010/10/07 7:22 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Rogan Dawes, > > In message <4cad569e.3020...@dawes.za.net> you wrote: >> >> Keep in mind that the Linux folk are looking for an alternative to the >> defconfig mess that they have currently. >> >> Linus has stated that he will delete all the ARM defconfigs soon. > > I think the current Linux approach is focussed on generating single > kernel images that can be used on as many as possible platforms. This > is needed for things like building Linux distributions and such. > > U-Boot, on the other hand, is very much bound to specific hardware > configurations, and at least so far (*) we will always need secial > configurations for each board. This makes a pretty much fundamental > difference. > > (*) We discussed before to auto-configure U-Boot for example based on > a device tee description of the hardware. But it is still a long way > to go. > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk
My understanding of it (although I have not followed it closely) was that they were looking for a mechanism to specify those things that should be in the configuration at a high level, that would then lead to the rest of the dependent items being selected automatically. So, rather than having a *full* config file (and all the associated churn as individual settings are changed within the kernel), they would only have a snippet that selects the specific features for the board, that would then cascade-select the rest of the settings for a full kernel config. That was considered acceptable, afaik. Rogan _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot