[RFC PATCH 2/2] configs: Add am62x_beagleplay_* defconfigs

[Andrew Davis]

On 8/30/23 9:59 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 09:31-20230830, Andrew Davis wrote:
>> On 8/30/23 7:31 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 17:14-20230829, Andrew Davis wrote:
>>>> Add am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig for R5 SPL and
>>>> am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig for A53 SPL and U-Boot support.
>>>>
>>>> These defconfigs are composite defconfigs built from the config fragment
>>>> board/ti/am62x/beagleplay_*.config applied onto the base
>>>> am62x_evm_*_defconfig.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <afd at ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    configs/am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig | 3 +++
>>>>    configs/am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig  | 3 +++
>>>>    2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>    create mode 100644 configs/am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig
>>>>    create mode 100644 configs/am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/configs/am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig b/configs/am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 00000000000..ad708e15397
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/configs/am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
>>>> +// The BeaglePlay defconfig for A53 core
>>>> +#include "configs/am62x_evm_a53_defconfig"
>>>> +#include "board/ti/am62x/beagleplay_a53.config"
>>>> diff --git a/configs/am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig b/configs/am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 00000000000..276b1f81a3e
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/configs/am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
>>>> +// The BeaglePlay defconfig for R5 core
>>>> +#include "configs/am62x_evm_r5_defconfig"
>>>> +#include "board/ti/am62x/beagleplay_r5.config"
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.39.2
>>>>
>>>
>>> my only complaint is that if we add lets say
>>> board/ti/am62x/dfu.config, Then:
>>>
>>> R5:
>>> 1. am62x_evm_r5_defconfig = am62x_evm_r5_defconfig
>>> 2. am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig = am62x_evm_r5_defconfig + beagleplay_r5.config
>>> 3. am62x_evm_r5_dfu_defconfig = am62x_evm_r5_defconfig + dfu.config
>>> 4. am62x_beagleplay_r5_dfu_defconfig = am62x_evm_r5_defconfig + beagleplay_r5.config + dfu.config
>>>
>>> This information can be in a single txt file Rather than have a
>>> defconfig file for each combination.
>>>
>>
>> Having every combination in a text file vs in a directory of files doesn't
>> seem like much difference to me. `cat combinations.txt` vs `ls -l configs/`.
>> But using a file would mean extra tooling and non-standard usage.
> 
> The .config usage is a standard already in kernel - nothing new there.
> 
> What we are attempting to solve is CI build coverage and test aspect of
> things.
> 

Exactly, when I say "standard" I mean CI standard, which is to take all
the configs/* and build them. No parsing these new combination files needed.
Just add a new configs/xx_defconfig for a combination you want to be
CI tested and you are done.

> Thinking aloud here:
> some sort of board/<vendor>/<board>/ci.conf yaml could probably be a better
> approach with description of build, automated test information,
> potentially board revisions etc.
> 
>> Let's simply try to avoid these combinatorial problems by avoiding adding
>> too many fragments that apply broadly. That adds testing burden. When features
> 
> The combinations will be valid since the intent is a supported
> configuration.
> 

In theory anything you do in menuconfig should result in a valid configuration
(if we have our kconfig symbol dependencies in order). And randomconfig testing
can handle that. The combinations we want always tested should be limited, and
making each have a dedicated configs/ file does that.

Andrew