From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3C05653E.26DA9C14@vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:29:18 +0000 From: Tom Gall Reply-To: tom_gall@vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Troy Benjegerdes Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC References: <15365.24592.409195.392505@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20011128162046.L23942@altus.drgw.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:07:12AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > > I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the > > linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll > > use that). > > > > Does anyone object to this? > > I thought were were goign to call it 'CONFIG_WORKSTATION_PPC' or > 'CONFIG_DESKTOP' > > I'd be happy with CONFIG_DESKTOP, or CONFIG_PPC_MULTIARCH. Hmmm But doesn't that suggest there is CONFIG_PPC_SERVER? Ick! Not to ask a stupid question, but what is this CONFIG_ALL_PPC replacement trying to accomplish? CONFIG_PPC_PREP seems to imply the PREP standard for all it's warts CONFIG_PPC_CHRP same thing... tho to me a PMAC and a CHRP box are well, sorta the same thing I hate to advocate this but if CONFIG_ALL_PPC isn't really being "truthful" as far as what it is, then perhaps testing for something like CONFIG_PPC_PREP, CONFIG_PPC_CHRP etc maybe isn't a bad idea. Code bloat true and certainly a little harder on the eyes, but it is certainly alot more clear as far as the expectations the affected portion of code might have. Regards, Tom -- Tom Gall - [embedded] [PPC64 | PPC32] Code Monkey Peace, Love & "Where's the ka-boom? There was Linux Technology Center supposed to be an earth http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc/ shattering ka-boom!" (w) tom_gall@vnet.ibm.com -- Marvin Martian (w) 507-253-4558 (h) tgall@rochcivictheatre.org ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/