Please pull linux-2.6-mpc52xx.git

[Bartlomiej Sieka]

Bartlomiej Sieka wrote:
> Hi Grant,
> 
> Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <tur at semihalf.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Grant Likely wrote:
>>>  > The one part that I have a really strong opinion on is that there
>>>  > should be a full featured mpc5200 defconfig for build testing.  
>>> Beyond
>>>  > that (and if ojn can also be appeased) I can probably be 
>>> convinced.  :-)
>>>
>>>  Hi Grant,
>>>
>>>  How to deal with a situation where I need a particular PHY driver from
>>>  libphy compiled in the kernel for one of the MPC5200 boards? Adding it
>>>  to mpc5200_defconfig doesn't seem like a right thing to do.
>>
>> Why not?  mpc5200_defconfig is all about compile and runtime testing
>> on many platforms to make sure drivers play well together.  I have no
>> problem adding more drivers to the mpc5200 defconfig.  (In fact, I
>> encourage it).
>>
>>>  How to
>>>  convince you (and appease ojn) to accept a patch that adds a
>>>  board-specific defconfig that only slightly differs from
>>>  mpc5200_defconfig? :)
>>
>> I'm thinking 'optimized' defconfigs should go into a subdirectory.
> 
> This requires a change to the top-level Makefile and shepherding this
> change upstream. Could we perhaps try to avoid this by having optimized
> defconfigs in the form of, for example:
> 
> arch/powerpc/configs/tqm5200_opt_defconfig
> arch/powerpc/configs/motionpro_opt_defconfig
> 
> Or, to signify what is the base defconfig:
> 
> arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_tqm5200_defconfig
> arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_motionpro_defconfig
> 
> or even:
> 
> arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_opt_tqm5200_defconfig
> arch/powerpc/configs/mpc5200_opt_motionpro_defconfig
> 
> Would patch adding an optimized _defconfig along these lines be accepted?

Grant,

Any thoughts on the above?

Regards,
Bartlomiej