[RFC] First pass config fragment breakout for linaro kernel

John Stultz john.stultz at linaro.org
Wed Mar 28 16:47:06 UTC 2012

On 03/28/2012 05:24 AM, Tushar Behera wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 12:50 AM, John Stultz wrote:
>>      So after talking about it at the last Linaro Connect, I've finally
>> gotten around to making a first pass at providing config fragments for
>> the linaro kernel.  I'd like to propose merging this for 12.04, and
>> doing so early so we can make sure that all the desired config options
>> are present in the fragments and to allow the vairous linaro build
>> systems to begin migrating their config generation over.
>> The current tree is here:
>> http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/android.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/linaro-configs-3.3
>> The most relevant commit being:
>> http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/android.git;a=commitdiff;h=da8f6d20e1a768cb486005c5ec62582b6f92990d
>> This includes config fragments for a linaro-base, an android-ization
>> fragment, and  board configs for panda, origen and imx53.
>> I suspect we'll need an ubuntu specific fragment as well as all the
>> other board fragments.
>> There is likely to be quite a bit of churn as we decide what sort of
>> configs are really common and which are board specific. But that's ok.
>> Configs are generated from the config fragments, as follows:
>> ./scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh ./configs/linaro-base.conf
>> ./configs/android.conf ./configs/panda.conf
>> You may see warnings, which are not fatal, but should be reported so
>> they can be properly cleaned up.
>> I'm asking for Build folks to take a look at the above and consider how
>> they might merge in fragment assembly into their system replacing their
>> current config generation.
>> I'd ask Landing teams to take a look at this, and report any missing
>> config options or fragment chunks they'd like to see.
> I have updated origen.conf and linaro-base.conf for testing Samsung LT
> kernel. The results are updated in [1].
I'll take a look at the changes and try to merge them into my tree.

> I have not validated the changes in android.conf, but by merging
> linaro-base.conf and origen.conf, I was able to boot my kernel the way I
> would have expected when using exynos4_defconfig.
> One thing I notice is that I find far too many debug messages with this
> new config.
You mean the debug output from the merge_config.sh script is a bit 
noisy?  Yea. Likely we'll have some extra noise as we settle out what 
options needs to be generic vs board specific.  But it should decrease 
over time.

> Going forward, would it be better to have linaro-base.conf, android.conf
> and ubuntu.conf managed centrally and each LT managing their board
> specific configuration file. That way, we can include the changes in our
> board specific configurations in respective topic branches.
So yea, I'd like to delegate/give away as much management of the configs 
as possible.  :)

That said, I do think that we'll need someone looking at the entire 
cross-board fragment picture (since if everyone needs an option, it 
really isn't board specific).   So it might be a good idea to have basic 
board config fragments that work with upstream. Then any board-specific 
feature branches can add their config needs in as a patch on top.

Does that sound reasonable?


More information about the linaro-dev mailing list