From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:09:36 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Michael Sokolov Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Incoming to helium.harhan.org:/home/linuxppc/linuxppc_2_4_alt Message-ID: <20020410150936.GB26754@opus.bloom.county> References: <20020409194721.GI1331@opus.bloom.county> <0204092005.AA24074@ivan.Harhan.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <0204092005.AA24074@ivan.Harhan.ORG> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Michael Sokolov wrote: > > Tom Rini wrote: > > > And the other point is that this makes it less clean to add in a new > > board port. > > No, it's perfectly clean, you just throw one more machine into the > CONFIG_GENERIC_PPC32 framework. You're touching c files. See Pauls comments about that. > > But what if they aren't really configurable? > > They may not be configurable on a given board, but they are configurable given > an infinite number of boards. So why not ask it for boards where it's reasonable? IE asking about 8xx enet on 6xx is harmless, but why do it? > > You could turn off > > CONFIG_PCI, but I don't think you'd get too far on most[1] systems. > [snip] Yes, and I said most, not all, most. :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/