[PATCH] ARM: defconfig: qcom: add APQ8060 DragonBoard devices

[Andy Gross]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:11:01PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 01/11/2017 03:08 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:19:55 PM CET Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Andy Gross <andy.gross at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:55:21AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>>> This default-enables the devices found on the APQ8060 DragonBoard
> >>>> in the qcom_defconfig:
> >>>>
> >>>> - EBI2 bus
> >>>> - SMSC911x ethernet
> >>>> - LEDs class and PM8058 LEDs driver, trigger and heartbeat
> >>>>   trigger (so we get heartbeat on the board by default)
> >>>> - IIO framework, including the HRTimer trigger, KXSD9
> >>>>   accelerometer, MPU3050 gyroscope, AK8975 magnetometer and
> >>>>   BMP085 pressure sensor
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>
> >>>
> >>> This brings up a point of discussion.  Do we even need the qcom_defconfig any
> >>> more?  Is everyone comfortable with using the multi_v7_defconfig?
> > 
> > I think having one specialized defconfig for the platform is helpful for
> > the build/boot testing, e.g. it can show whether a boot failure with
> > multi_v7_defconfig is the result of a qcom-specific change, or a side-effect
> > of something that was done on another platform.
> > 
> >>> Aside from size of the image, i can't think of any other reason to keep around
> >>> the separate qcom file.
> >>
> >> Actually a bit of Arnd/Olof question.
> >>
> >> Bystander opinion below:
> >>
> >> That is pretty much up to the maintainer (you) I guess.
> >> Reasons would be:
> >>
> >> - Lower footprint (because you may not need all stuff selected
> >>   as 'y' compiled-in in multi_v7) on some platforms this is even
> >>   necessary to get a bootable image or one that will load in
> >>   reasonable time.
> >>
> >> - Enable a few things by default (both compiled-in and modules)
> >>   that multi_v7 would consider to be littering
> >>
> >> - For "my" systems I usually like them because these defconfigs
> >>   have vastly shorter compile time (because so much stuff that
> >>   idon't concern me is left out).
> >>
> >> On the other hand: some ARMv7 system maintainers have x86
> >> ambitions: compile once, run everywhere, and certainly that is
> >> the ambition with multi_v7, and if that overshadows all the above,
> >> just kill off qcom_defconfig and be happy :)
> > 
> > We recently killed of the Broadcom defconfig file that actually
> > contained some very different platforms that had not much in common
> > besides the company name.
> > 
> > I think my preference is to keep it, but if Andy wants it removed
> > and nobody complains, that's fine too.
> > 
> > 	Arnd
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> In fact, as far as I remember the multi_v7 did not fit on the MDM9615
> due to it's limited memory available to Linux.

This was mainly a user poll.  We'll keep it in as there is at least one user who
cannot use the multiv7 due to size.  That alone is enough to keep it around.

Linus, I'll add this to my pull list.

Andy