From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:12:48 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Jerome Glisse Message-ID: <20050110191248.GB3391@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <4240b916050109074053e328b1@mail.gmail.com> <16865.39960.274092.996530@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20050110145219.GB2226@smtp.west.cox.net> <4240b9160501101014317b8d85@mail.gmail.com> <20050110182940.GA3391@smtp.west.cox.net> <4240b91605011010593d2f3b3d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4240b91605011010593d2f3b3d@mail.gmail.com> Cc: Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: Classic PPC specific ASM (CONFIG_6XX) List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:59:50PM +0100, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > I have a feeling CONFIG_6xx isn't selected for a good reason. Can you > > try, as a kludge, removing define_bool PPC_PREP from arch/ppc/Kconfig > > and seeing if you can build / boot ? Thanks. > > > > -- > > Tom Rini > > http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ > > > > Seems that this flags is linked to many things :) I tried removing PPC_PREP > bool but the kernel fail to compile with again new errors : > One last thing before we just do what you suggested originally, can you hack it so that PPC_PREP is still set, but on 970 we still set CONFIG_6xx? Thanks again. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/