On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 13:34 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Olof, > > On Monday 08 October 2007, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > +config KILAUEA > > > + bool "Kilauea" > > > + depends on 40x > > > + default y > > > + select 405EX > > > + help > > > + This option enables support for the AMCC PPC405EX evaluation board. > > > + > > > #config REDWOOD_5 > > > # bool "Redwood-5" > > > # depends on 40x > > > @@ -89,14 +97,17 @@ config 403GCX > > > #depends on OAK > > > select IBM405_ERR51 > > > > > > +config 405EP > > > + bool > > > + > > > +config 405EX > > > + bool > > > + > > > > Do you really need config options for 405EP/EX? I don't seem them used > > anywhere else in the code (and it's also contradictory to the whole new > > multiplatform way of looking at stuff :). > > > > I know the 405/440 is still somewhat #ifdef:ed on the cpu here and there, > > but since this doesn't add any such code I don't see a need for the config > > options? > > Yes, I'm still used to needing these defines from arch/ppc (for example for > the 4xx EMAC driver). But its possible, that we really don't need it at all > in arch/powerpc with all the device tree information. Not sure though. > > Josh, what do you think? Should I remove the 405EX define completely?
If it's not needed, it can go. As Olof said, it doesn't appear to be used anywhere in the code so I think it's fine. One question I do have is if 405EX and 405EP need any of the 405GP errata config options selected. I would like to think those don't apply because the hardware is fixed, but I haven't checked to be sure. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
