From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:12:35 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Dan Malek Cc: paulus@samba.org, linux-galileo@source.mvista.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs Message-ID: <20020402201235.GA28287@opus.bloom.county> References: <0203210213.AA15856@ivan.Harhan.ORG> <3C99801A.8070002@embeddededge.com> <15526.51621.991410.781713@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <3CA8A96D.9040309@embeddededge.com> <15529.17031.622986.926261@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <3CA9EA93.5000404@embeddededge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3CA9EA93.5000404@embeddededge.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 12:29:55PM -0500, Dan Malek wrote: > > I'm glad you found _some_ of the humor in it :-) > > Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > >Two reasons: (a) it seems to be that (for example) most of the if > >statements in arch/ppc/config.in are concerned with embedded boards, > > Well, yes, and at one point I tried to create config.in files that were > unique to the boards/peripherals that were just callouts from config.in. > That didn't last long because all of these were incorporated (not by me :-) > into config.in and other places. I thought having these board specific > configuration files was kind of nice, kept arch/ppc/config.in cleaner, > kept the interdependencies localized to a sensible place, but I guess > someone thought different when it got merged from the development tree. It was probably me. One thing I want to do in the 2.5 tree is make arch/ppc/platforms/{8xx,4xx}.in and source those from arch/ppc/config.in, as well as move network things to network Config files, and so on. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/