* [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP
@ 2006-04-07 0:31 Adrian Bunk
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2006-04-07 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James.Bottomley; +Cc: linux-kernel, Zachary Amsden
I noted that X86_VOYAGER=y and SMP=n doesn't compile.
It might be possible to fix this, but as far as I understand it, all
Voyager machines are SMP, implying that such a configuration doesn't
make much sense.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
--- linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm1-voyager/arch/i386/Kconfig.old 2006-04-07 01:02:34.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm1-voyager/arch/i386/Kconfig 2006-04-07 01:02:47.000000000 +0200
@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@
config X86_VOYAGER
bool "Voyager (NCR)"
+ depends on SMP
help
Voyager is an MCA-based 32-way capable SMP architecture proprietary
to NCR Corp. Machine classes 345x/35xx/4100/51xx are Voyager-based.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP
@ 2006-04-18 22:07 Adrian Bunk
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2006-04-18 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: James.Bottomley, linux-kernel
I noted that X86_VOYAGER=y and SMP=n doesn't compile.
It might be possible to fix this, but as far as I understand it, all
Voyager machines are SMP, implying that such a configuration doesn't
make much sense.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
---
This patch was already sent on:
- 7 Apr 2006
--- linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm1-voyager/arch/i386/Kconfig.old 2006-04-07 01:02:34.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm1-voyager/arch/i386/Kconfig 2006-04-07 01:02:47.000000000 +0200
@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@
config X86_VOYAGER
bool "Voyager (NCR)"
+ depends on SMP
help
Voyager is an MCA-based 32-way capable SMP architecture proprietary
to NCR Corp. Machine classes 345x/35xx/4100/51xx are Voyager-based.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP
@ 2006-04-27 20:33 Adrian Bunk
2006-04-27 23:06 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2006-04-27 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: James.Bottomley, linux-kernel
I noted that X86_VOYAGER=y and SMP=n doesn't compile.
It might be possible to fix this, but as far as I understand it, all
Voyager machines are SMP, implying that such a configuration doesn't
make much sense.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
---
This patch was already sent on:
- 19 Apr 2006
- 7 Apr 2006
--- linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm1-voyager/arch/i386/Kconfig.old 2006-04-07 01:02:34.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm1-voyager/arch/i386/Kconfig 2006-04-07 01:02:47.000000000 +0200
@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@
config X86_VOYAGER
bool "Voyager (NCR)"
+ depends on SMP
help
Voyager is an MCA-based 32-way capable SMP architecture proprietary
to NCR Corp. Machine classes 345x/35xx/4100/51xx are Voyager-based.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP
2006-04-27 20:33 Adrian Bunk
@ 2006-04-27 23:06 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-27 23:08 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2006-04-27 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk; +Cc: James.Bottomley, linux-kernel
Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
>
> I noted that X86_VOYAGER=y and SMP=n doesn't compile.
>
> It might be possible to fix this, but as far as I understand it, all
> Voyager machines are SMP, implying that such a configuration doesn't
> make much sense.
I was kinda waiting for James to express an opinion. In theory it'd be
better to make uniproc-on-Voyager build, boot and run like the wind.
In practice, this patch looks practical ;)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP
2006-04-27 23:06 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2006-04-27 23:08 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: James Bottomley @ 2006-04-27 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Adrian Bunk, linux-kernel
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 16:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> I was kinda waiting for James to express an opinion. In theory it'd be
> better to make uniproc-on-Voyager build, boot and run like the wind.
I do have making uniprocessor build work on my todo list. There are
actually a surprising number of non-smp machines out their (mainly
3360s).
James
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-04-27 23:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-04-07 0:31 [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP Adrian Bunk
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-04-18 22:07 Adrian Bunk
2006-04-27 20:33 Adrian Bunk
2006-04-27 23:06 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-27 23:08 ` James Bottomley
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox