Re: [NET] Remove ARM dependency for dm9000 driver

Russell King
2005-12-01T09:41:18Z

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:36:39AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 19:02 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > We agree to disagree. For example, in all probability, ARM will never
> > see a TPM chip, yet it's offered for selection. Given that, does it
> > really make sense to offer it for ARM?
>
> You speak of _probability_. Yes, it makes sense to offer it as an
> _option_ for ARM. It just doesn't make sense to put it in the defconfig
> for any of the existing platforms.
>
> Nobody expects 'allyesconfig' to be something you'd actually want to
> _use_.

In which case why do we restrict floppy to only those machines which
could have floppy? Why do we restrict IDE to only those platforms
which may have IDE?

Hint: there's already a precident established for *not* offering
configuration options which are pointless.

--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core