From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:21:54 -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: <20020403002154.GB744@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> <20020402201235.GA28287@opus.bloom.county> <3CAA1C80.3070407@embeddededge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3CAA1C80.3070407@embeddededge.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 04:02:56PM -0500, Dan Malek wrote: > Tom Rini wrote: > > >It was probably me. > > Heh.....I'm just having some fun :-). Ya, I figured :) > I also know the reason > you probably changed it was to either make munuconfig or > something work, or had plans for CML-2. I think some of the > confusing stuff we have for configuration is due to the tools > themselves, and that sometimes is reflected in the way the > code (#define and #ifdef) is written. Yes, there are some neat things which might be less feasible, or at least less of a good idea due to the current tools. > >... 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, > > I know that would help. What happened to CML-2? I have a feeling that ESR stopped announcing releases of it on l-k since it wasn't adopted yet, and Linus has decided to fix more important things than the config system (and ESR refuses to try and transition from CML1 to CML2 in a manner that can be easily verified to be correct or stop trying to tackle the Aunt Tillie problem at the same time). -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/