On Tuesday, January 07, 2014 03:57:22 AM Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > You misunderstood. I don't propose to remove HAVE_ACPI_TABLES. > HAVE_ACPI_TABLES remains per-board characteristic. > The only thing I remove is GENERATE_ACPI_TABLES which is user-visible > option. > This way presence of ACPI-tables is determined by board porter based on > the need and availability of ACPI tables > Again, just because you can't find a use for that option does not mean it should be removed.
> Right now we're at opposite end when you almost have to use genetic > algorithm to find which configuration works. > That's exactly why we have board-status. If you are using anything other than a pre-tested .config (and crossgcc), you are hacking, and that always comes with its associated set of risks. The fact that the majority of users are coreboot-impotent is not a reason to remove options. Alex P.S. Did I mention that linux has a billion times more options than we do? -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot