On 09:31-20230830, Andrew Davis wrote: > On 8/30/23 7:31 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > On 17:14-20230829, Andrew Davis wrote: > > > Add am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig for R5 SPL and > > > am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig for A53 SPL and U-Boot support. > > > > > > These defconfigs are composite defconfigs built from the config fragment > > > board/ti/am62x/beagleplay_*.config applied onto the base > > > am62x_evm_*_defconfig. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <a...@ti.com> > > > --- > > > configs/am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig | 3 +++ > > > configs/am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig | 3 +++ > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 configs/am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig > > > create mode 100644 configs/am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig > > > > > > diff --git a/configs/am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig > > > b/configs/am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 00000000000..ad708e15397 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/configs/am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig > > > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ > > > +// The BeaglePlay defconfig for A53 core > > > +#include "configs/am62x_evm_a53_defconfig" > > > +#include "board/ti/am62x/beagleplay_a53.config" > > > diff --git a/configs/am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig > > > b/configs/am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 00000000000..276b1f81a3e > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/configs/am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig > > > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ > > > +// The BeaglePlay defconfig for R5 core > > > +#include "configs/am62x_evm_r5_defconfig" > > > +#include "board/ti/am62x/beagleplay_r5.config" > > > -- > > > 2.39.2 > > > > > > > my only complaint is that if we add lets say > > board/ti/am62x/dfu.config, Then: > > > > R5: > > 1. am62x_evm_r5_defconfig = am62x_evm_r5_defconfig > > 2. am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig = am62x_evm_r5_defconfig + > > beagleplay_r5.config > > 3. am62x_evm_r5_dfu_defconfig = am62x_evm_r5_defconfig + dfu.config > > 4. am62x_beagleplay_r5_dfu_defconfig = am62x_evm_r5_defconfig + > > beagleplay_r5.config + dfu.config > > > > This information can be in a single txt file Rather than have a > > defconfig file for each combination. > > > > Having every combination in a text file vs in a directory of files doesn't > seem like much difference to me. `cat combinations.txt` vs `ls -l configs/`. > But using a file would mean extra tooling and non-standard usage.
The .config usage is a standard already in kernel - nothing new there. What we are attempting to solve is CI build coverage and test aspect of things. Thinking aloud here: some sort of board/<vendor>/<board>/ci.conf yaml could probably be a better approach with description of build, automated test information, potentially board revisions etc. > Let's simply try to avoid these combinatorial problems by avoiding adding > too many fragments that apply broadly. That adds testing burden. When features The combinations will be valid since the intent is a supported configuration. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
