Platform configuration (was: Re: CONFIG_PPC != Mac)
geert at linux-m68k.org
Wed Aug 30 23:29:29 EST 2000
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Michel [iso-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
> > Where does APUS fit in there?
> APUS is something different (CONFIG_APUS, cfr. arch/ppc/config.in). Currently
> it's not possible to build one kernel that supports both APUS and any other
> machine type anyway.
> So currently you have to compile a kernel for _either_
> PowerMac/PReP/MTX/CHRP (CONFIG_ALL_PPC)
> or Gemini (CONFIG_GEMINI)
> or EST8260 (CONFIG_EST8260)
> or APUS (CONFIG_APUS)
> Personally I'd more like a configuration where you can select whatever you
> want of
> - PowerMac (CONFIG_PMAC)
> - PReP (CONFIG_PREP)
> - MTX (CONFIG_MTX)
> - CHRP (CONFIG_CHRP)
> - Gemini (CONFIG_GEMINI)
> - EST8260 (CONFIG_EST8260)
> - APUS (CONFIG_APUS)
> with of course some extra logic to prevent illegal combinations.
So what about this?
--- linux-2.4.0-test8-pre1/arch/ppc/config.in.orig Wed Aug 23 18:52:20 2000
+++ linux-2.4.0-test8-pre1/arch/ppc/config.in Wed Aug 30 14:23:38 2000
@@ -82,6 +82,10 @@
if [ "$CONFIG_ALL_PPC" != "y" ];then
+ bool 'PowerMac support' CONFIG_PMAC
+ bool 'PReP support' CONFIG_PREP
+ bool 'MTX support' CONFIG_MTX
+ bool 'CHRP support' CONFIG_CHRP
define_bool CONFIG_MACH_SPECIFIC y
and replace all tests for CONFIG_ALL_PPC by a suitable combination of tests
for CONFIG_PMAC/CONFIG_PREP/CONFIG_MTX/CONFIG_CHRP? (BTW, there are still some
relics of CONFIG_PREP around in config.in)
This clearly indicates that you can
1. still compile one kernel that can run on all of PowerMac/PReP/MTX/CHRP,
2. it allows to fine tune the kernel to your specific machine and
3. protect against illegal combinations with other machine types.
And if it ever will be possible to compile a generic kernel that runs on e.g.
APUS as well, CONFIG_APUS can be included in CONFIG_ALL_PPC (or better, rename
it to CONFIG_GENERIC_PPC) as well.
I'm willing to work on a first patch, but I don't have a PPC cross-compiler at
hand and am unable to use bitkeeper, so I have to base it on plain
2.4.0-test8-pre1 and leave it untested. Whoever owns whatever machine can
smooth the rough edges for his/her platform afterwards.
What do you think?
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev