In 2.5's menuconfig there are now two "general setup" sections; one is
generic and one is ours. We also have a "platform setup" section. It
seems like all our "general setup" questions could be folded into
"platform setup", e.g. "Workarounds for PPC601 bugs" and "Support for
Open Firmware device tree in /proc". Can we get rid of our "general
setup"?
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 05:32:46PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
In 2.5's menuconfig there are now two "general setup" sections; one is
generic and one is ours. We also have a "platform setup" section. It
seems like all our "general setup" questions could be folded into
"platform setup", e.g. "Workarounds for PPC601 bugs" and "Support for
Open Firmware device tree in /proc". Can we get rid of our "general
setup"?
I suspect it's an artifact of before we had init/Kconfig. In theory, we
certainly should. But if we kill it outright, our 'platform setup' gets
quite large. How about a bus options menu, like i386 has to break this
up a bit (and some movement of options with that) ?
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 10:14 US/Central, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 05:32:46PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
quoted
In 2.5's menuconfig there are now two "general setup" sections; one is
generic and one is ours. We also have a "platform setup" section. It
seems like all our "general setup" questions could be folded into
"platform setup", e.g. "Workarounds for PPC601 bugs" and "Support for
Open Firmware device tree in /proc". Can we get rid of our "general
setup"?
I suspect it's an artifact of before we had init/Kconfig. In theory,
we
certainly should. But if we kill it outright, our 'platform setup'
gets
quite large. How about a bus options menu, like i386 has to break this
up a bit (and some movement of options with that) ?
This is what I came up with. I tried to split our config options into 3
sections: "processor", "platform options", and "bus options". Maybe
that's not necessary, but... easy to combine them by removing 4 lines.
:) The diff itself is large; it may be better to look at the end result
instead. I didn't actually change any dependencies here, just moved
them around.
I noticed some obsolete config options (e.g. CONFIG_SERIAL_CONSOLE,
CONFIG_PC_KEYBOARD). Also, it's possible to create incorrect
configurations such as CONFIG_POWER3 and CONFIG_SPRUCE. Also, APUS
really deserves its own config file, and the "IBM 4xx options" menu
should be hidden if !CONFIG_4xx. A lot of configure help is also
missing, especially on embedded options. I figure these can be later
patches.
-Hollis
On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 22:18 US/Central, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
I noticed some obsolete config options (e.g. CONFIG_SERIAL_CONSOLE,
CONFIG_PC_KEYBOARD). Also, it's possible to create incorrect
configurations such as CONFIG_POWER3 and CONFIG_SPRUCE. Also, APUS
really deserves its own config file, and the "IBM 4xx options" menu
should be hidden if !CONFIG_4xx. A lot of configure help is also
missing, especially on embedded options. I figure these can be later
patches.
I forgot to mention that the patch was relative to linuxppc-2.5.
Here's another: briefly tested, seems to work.
===== arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/Kconfig 1.11 vs edited =====
From: Mark Guertin <hidden> Date: 2003-09-16 18:18:42
Hey All
I noticed that again the rsync module for linuxppc-2.2 has a couple
file permission problems from source.mvista.com. Tom fixed this a
little while back, but it's popped up again ... maybe in pushing from
bk -> rsync ? This problem seems to have only come back on the latest
update.
Here's a snip from the logfile of the ppckernel builder from the
rsync...
send_files failed to open Documentation/kernel-docs.txt: Permission
denied
send_files failed to open Documentation/proc.txt: Permission denied
Not a show stopper, but I hate to make tarballs and distribute
incomplete code, especially when it's the docs ;)
Gerk
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:18:42PM -0400, Mark Guertin wrote:
Hey All
I noticed that again the rsync module for linuxppc-2.2 has a couple
file permission problems from source.mvista.com. Tom fixed this a
little while back, but it's popped up again ... maybe in pushing from
bk -> rsync ? This problem seems to have only come back on the latest
update.
Actually, I didn't touch 2.2 since I didn't know it was broken (source
was a slower machine back then, so fixing all repos would have taken
hours). I'm starting a rebuild right now of:
linuxppc_2_4 linuxppc_2_4_devel linuxppc-2.5 linuxppc_2_4_benh
linuxppc-2.4 linuxppc_2_2
and it should be done shortly. While I'm thinking of it, does anyone
know of other trees I should be mirroring ? Ben?
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/