Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1221184 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-09 04:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-09-09 07:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Kconfig: remove BE-only platforms from LE kernel build Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2015-09-09 04:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Kconfig: remove BE-only platforms from LE kernel build Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 05:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Kconfig: remove BE-only platforms from LE kernel build Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2015-09-09 07:50 +0200
| From | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 04:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Kconfig: remove BE-only platforms from LE kernel build |
| Message-ID | <q6Dj4-6hq-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 07:58 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > index 2f23133..808a904 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ config PPC_CELL_NATIVE > > config PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE > bool "IBM Cell Blade" > - depends on PPC64 && PPC_BOOK3S > + depends on PPC64 && PPC_BOOK3S && CPU_BIG_ENDIAN We end up saying this five times. We already have PPC_BOOK3S_64 which captures the first two conditions, should we add a PPC_BOOK3S_64_BE which expresses it all? cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 05:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q6Ef8-7BM-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1221184 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi Michael, On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:26:44PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 07:58 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > > index 2f23133..808a904 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ config PPC_CELL_NATIVE > > > > config PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE > > bool "IBM Cell Blade" > > - depends on PPC64 && PPC_BOOK3S > > + depends on PPC64 && PPC_BOOK3S && CPU_BIG_ENDIAN > > We end up saying this five times. > > We already have PPC_BOOK3S_64 which captures the first two conditions, should > we add a PPC_BOOK3S_64_BE which expresses it all? > I'm not sure whether this is worth.. IMO, we add a config option only if 1. we can use this config somewhere in the code, for example, "#ifdef CONFIG_XXX" or 2. we want to offer a option for users to choose. PPC_BOOK3S_64_BE satisfies neither condition. Further more, CONFIG_PPC64, CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S and CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN all are used in some #ifdefs in current code. As a newbie of kernel, I'm happy to get some knowledge like: "If I'm hacking PS3, then #ifndef CONFIG_PPC64 is guaranteed to be false, so I can just ignore the code guarded by them". But if we add a PPC_BOOK3S_64_BE, it will take a little more effort to see this. Regards, Boqun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 07:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q6GqE-2fO-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1221211 |
On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 11:25 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:26:44PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 07:58 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > > > index 2f23133..808a904 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > > > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ config PPC_CELL_NATIVE > > > > > > config PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE > > > bool "IBM Cell Blade" > > > - depends on PPC64 && PPC_BOOK3S > > > + depends on PPC64 && PPC_BOOK3S && CPU_BIG_ENDIAN > > > > We end up saying this five times. > > > > We already have PPC_BOOK3S_64 which captures the first two conditions, should > > we add a PPC_BOOK3S_64_BE which expresses it all? > > I'm not sure whether this is worth.. IMO, we add a config option only if > > 1. we can use this config somewhere in the code, for example, > "#ifdef CONFIG_XXX" > or > > 2. we want to offer a option for users to choose. > > PPC_BOOK3S_64_BE satisfies neither condition. Further more, > CONFIG_PPC64, CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S and CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN all are used > in some #ifdefs in current code. As a newbie of kernel, I'm happy to get > some knowledge like: "If I'm hacking PS3, then #ifndef CONFIG_PPC64 is > guaranteed to be false, so I can just ignore the code guarded by them". > But if we add a PPC_BOOK3S_64_BE, it will take a little more effort to > see this. Yeah those are good points, so I'll take it as is. Thanks for thinking about it :) cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web