From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.183]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C53DDE47 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:37:16 +1000 (EST) From: Arnd Bergmann To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Kconfig cleanup part II Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:37:07 +0200 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200704131337.08029.arnd@arndb.de> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Friday 13 April 2007, Kumar Gala wrote: > Here the second part of the Kconfig cleanup to move all the > platform/*/Kconfig to be sourced by platform/Kconfig. =A0Plus some other > minor cleanups. Nice patches, I had thought about doing these as well after I have cleaned up the CPU selection. Two questions though: =2D Is there a technical reason why we want to disallow building a kernel that contains a combination of 6xx, 83xx, 86xx and embedded6xx platforms, or are there only bugs that make it impossible? =2D I'm still not sure whether platform selection or cpu selection should come first, three options I can think of are: 1. CPU first, then platform: you might choose to build a kernel for 970 exclusively, which would allow you to select powermac, pseries and maple but no other platforms. 2. Platform first, the CPU: You might select pseries as the only platform, and then get presented with the choice between power3 to power6, rs64 and 970, but not cell or pa6t. 3. platform and CPU depend on instruction set, but not on each other, You only choose between powerpc64, 4xx, 6xx, e200, e500 or 8xx. This would allow nonworking setups though, like a 83xx platform with a 601 cpu or a ps3 with power5 cpu. Arnd <><