Re: Incoming to helium.harhan.org:/home/linuxppc/linuxppc_2_4_alt
From: Tom Rini <hidden>
Date: 2002-04-09 19:47:21
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:23:57PM -0700, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Tom Rini [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Well, take a look at what the file used to look like in _devel. It was around 30-40 lines of that. Which is not nice to look at.So what's more important, a pretty look or better functionality for the user?quoted
Well, it's a much better system if you want to group unlike hardware together in one kernel. :)Which is what I want to do, and which is the RTTD for distributions like Debian.
Taking debian as an example here. You certainly wouldn't stick a zImage for every board into 1 package. Why? It'd be a 20mb package and as it is a few people dislike the number of vmlinux's in the -pmac package. So you only 'win' if you have a common, _bootable_ image on all of these boards. And while it is possible that there could be a common firmware, I'm not holding my breath. :) And the other point is that this makes it less clean to add in a new board port.
quoted
Well, if ISA slots exist on the board, and should be working, they should just work. And when BenH merges in prep/chrp, it'll be needed. But the question is do you really want to offer this up on machines where it's not tested?I want to have configurable CONFIG_PCI and CONFIG_ISA support for CONFIG_GENERIC_PPC32. Generic means that things like this must be configurable.
But what if they aren't really configurable? You could turn off CONFIG_PCI, but I don't think you'd get too far on most[1] systems. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ [1]: Most, not all, most. I know there's 8xx and others... ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/