From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:09:41 +0100 (BST) Received: from p508B630B.dip.t-dialin.net ([IPv6:::ffff:80.139.99.11]:61492 "EHLO mail.linux-mips.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:09:38 +0100 Received: from fluff.linux-mips.net (fluff.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linux-mips.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3TK9VxT023875; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:09:31 +0200 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by fluff.linux-mips.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3TK9RZ8023874; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:09:27 +0200 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:09:27 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Tim Bird Cc: linux kernel , linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-sh-ctl@m17n.org, CE Linux Developers List Subject: Re: CONFIG_XIP_ROM vs. CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL Message-ID: <20040429200927.GB20401@linux-mips.org> References: <40915265.2050906@am.sony.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40915265.2050906@am.sony.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 4926 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:07:17PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote: > I'm looking at some sources for kernel Execute-in-place (XIP). > > I see references to CONFIG_XIP_ROM and CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL, > in different architecture branches of the same kernel > source tree. > > Is this difference merely the result of inconsistent > usage, or is there a functional difference between > these two options? > > I can imagine that CONFIG_XIP_ROM is intended only to > handle XIP in ROM, and that CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL possibly > handles additional cases like XIP in flash. However, > before jumping to that conclusion I thought I would > ask if there is some intention behind the different > config names. Since you copied linux-mips - neither option is implemented for MIPS ... Ralf