From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <445690F7.5050605@am.sony.com> References: <20060429232812.825714000@localhost.localdomain> <20060429233922.167124000@localhost.localdomain> <445690F7.5050605@am.sony.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/13] cell: split out board specific files Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 01:09:53 +0200 To: Geoff Levand Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Segher, a problem with your suggestion is that our > makefiles don't have as rich a set of logical ops as the > config files. Its easy to express 'build A if B', but not > so easy to do 'build A if not C'. To make this work > cleanly I made PPC_CELL denote !SOME_HYPERVISOR_THING, > so I can have constructions like this in the makefile: Not just that, but we can have a kernel image supporting both the "raw" hardware _and_ stuff with a hypervisor underneath. All CONFIG_ should always be used as a positive, never a negative. My bad :-) So it really should be depends on PPC_CELL_NATIVE or similar. Having PPC_CELL mean "native" / "raw" is not the way to go, there will be many many hypervisors in the future, it would be nice to have PPC_CELL mean just that, "support for the Cell architecture" in general, kernels running on various hypervisors will see the hardware virtualised to varying degrees. Segher