From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE808DDDF7 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:12:47 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <46C9B6DF.1000006@freescale.com> References: <20070820060000.GA26100@localhost.localdomain> <20070820103719.23f50f64@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <46C9B6DF.1000006@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <795532309eb785a667e66792fa722172@kernel.crashing.org> From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v2] Remove need for include/asm-ppc Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:11:51 +0200 To: Scott Wood Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, David Gibson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> What would be the point of doing that? I would think we want the >> opposite, in that we want to reuse as much of arch/powerpc during >> arch/ppc compiles as possible. Sort of shows how much is "left" to >> port. > > The point would be to keep the two trees separate, so that one doesn't > need to worry about breaking arch/ppc when making a change to > arch/powerpc. We should make arch/ppc as broken as possible so no one can complain when it is finally removed. I'll remove the config from my auto-builder right now :-) Segher