[PATCH v2 2/6] configs: sandbox_deconfig: remove CONFIG_AMIGA_PARTITION

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> schrieb am So., 24. Nov. 2024, 17:17:

> On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:45:50PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>
> > We do not actually test the code.
> > Scanning for Amiga partitions of the sandbox is extremely slow,
> > especially on the partially implemented USB device.
> >
> > For build testing the other sandbox defconfigs are good enough.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com>
> > ---
> > v2:
> >       new patch
> > ---
> >  configs/sandbox_defconfig | 1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/configs/sandbox_defconfig b/configs/sandbox_defconfig
> > index 718e4a8283c..683888f238f 100644
> > --- a/configs/sandbox_defconfig
> > +++ b/configs/sandbox_defconfig
> > @@ -142,7 +142,6 @@ CONFIG_CMD_SQUASHFS=y
> >  CONFIG_CMD_MTDPARTS=y
> >  CONFIG_CMD_STACKPROTECTOR_TEST=y
> >  CONFIG_MAC_PARTITION=y
> > -CONFIG_AMIGA_PARTITION=y
> >  CONFIG_OF_CONTROL=y
> >  CONFIG_OF_LIVE=y
> >  CONFIG_ENV_IS_NOWHERE=y
>
> This means we don't do static analysis on the code anymore either, which
> isn't good, in theory. In specifics, this is fine since the code rarely
> changes. But I wonder instead if we're timing out too quickly now? Or if
> we should have but weren't timing out before, but that's now been fixed?
>

There are still enough other sandbox defconfigs which build with
AMIGA_PRTITION.

As we don't have any real boards using it, should the Amiga partition
support be removed?

Best regards

Heinrich


> --
> Tom
>