From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:51:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:44305 "EHLO mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27010762AbbDWMvVPqI6R (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:51:21 +0200 Received: from KLMAIL01.kl.imgtec.org (unknown [192.168.5.35]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 4D273D7653DBB; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:51:14 +0100 (IST) Received: from LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org (192.168.152.62) by KLMAIL01.kl.imgtec.org (192.168.5.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:51:17 +0100 Received: from [192.168.154.77] (192.168.154.77) by LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org (192.168.152.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.210.2; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:51:16 +0100 Message-ID: <5538EAC4.2010902@imgtec.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:51:16 +0100 From: Markos Chandras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= CC: "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" , Hauke Mehrtens Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: bcm47xx: Move the BCM47XX board types under a choice symbol References: <1429792093-8160-1-git-send-email-markos.chandras@imgtec.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.154.77] 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: 47016 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: Markos.Chandras@imgtec.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On 04/23/2015 01:33 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 23 April 2015 at 14:28, Markos Chandras wrote: >> Since the build system expects one of the two types to be selected, >> it's better if we move these symbols under a new choice symbol. > > Nack, it doesn't allow building kernel with *both* buses support. > I see. I didn't know that this was a valid configuration. Perhaps the choice statement needs some rework to add a third option to select both buses. -- markos