Incoming to helium.harhan.org:/home/linuxppc/linuxppc_2_4_alt

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Michael Sokolov wrote:
>
> Tom Rini <trini at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> > And the other point is that this makes it less clean to add in a new
> > board port.
>
> No, it's perfectly clean, you just throw one more machine into the
> CONFIG_GENERIC_PPC32 framework.

You're touching c files.  See Pauls comments about that.

> > But what if they aren't really configurable?
>
> They may not be configurable on a given board, but they are configurable given
> an infinite number of boards.

So why not ask it for boards where it's reasonable?  IE asking about
8xx enet on 6xx is harmless, but why do it?

> > You could turn off
> > CONFIG_PCI, but I don't think you'd get too far on most[1] systems.
>
[snip]

Yes, and I said most, not all, most. :)

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/