From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.245]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFC4DDE09 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:05:58 +1100 (EST) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c37so65626anc.78 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:05:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:05:56 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: "Stephen Neuendorffer" Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Xilinx: Add generic configuration option to enable all xilinx drivers. In-Reply-To: <20080319043205.12E1F11E0071@mail67-dub.bigfish.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20080212213120.D51157F806B@mail176-sin.bigfish.com> <20080319043205.12E1F11E0071@mail67-dub.bigfish.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: > > > > > Hmm... interesting points. I guess my feeling was that XILINX_DRIVERS could > be a more broadly configurable option, with some of these ideas in mind. > Currently, it's hidden by default, but we could easily change this to be > visible by default, or selected by a broader number of architectures. I > tend to think about them as a group: What if x86 *did* support the > primitives needed by these drivers, then if the individual drivers depend on > XILINX_DRIVERS, then the modification could be made in one spot. By your > suggestion, we would have to modify each one independantly. Heh; it's not *that* many drivers and it's just Kconfig stuff which is real easy to change. My preference would be to eliminate XILINX_DRIVERS entirely, but I'm not going to fight about it. :-) Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.