1 Mar
2017
1 Mar
'17
8:25 p.m.
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because with time options will go in and out and occasionally we'll have outdated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