Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig

From: Emil Medve <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 20:34:19 -0600

Hello Scott,

On 11/12/2013 07:46 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:57 -0600, Emil Medve wrote:
>> Hello Scott,
>>
>>
>> On 11/12/2013 04:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote:
>>>> mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y.
>>>> Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan <[email-masked]>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig  |  188 ----------------------------
>>>>  arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig     |   18 +++
>>>>  arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig |   17 +++
>>>>  3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-)
>>>>  delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig
>>>
>>> Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally
>>> get datapath support upstream?  That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx
>>> config just for this one chip.
>>
>> Yes. But for mpc85xx_/smp_defconfig the datapath support shouldn't be
>> enabled by default given that just one SoC in that family has the
>> datapath (and we don't plan to put it in another e500v2 based SoC). For
>> regression/automation purposes config fragments should be used
> 
> Is there any way to specify a meta-config for p1023 (or e500v2-dpaa or
> whatever) that says to combine mpc85xx_smp_defconfig with a dpaa
> fragment?

Not aware of it

> Do we have any config fragments in the tree so far?

Nope. However, just to make sure, the fragment was my secondary point
and not necessarily as a candidate for upstreaming. My main point was
that the datapath support should simply not be enabled by default in the
mpc85xx_[smp_]defconfig

Cheers,