On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 11:49 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 02 June 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > --- linux-work.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype 2009-06-02 > > 16:29:27.000000000 +1000 > > +++ linux-work/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype 2009-06-02 > > 16:55:01.000000000 +1000 > > @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ menu "Processor support" > > choice > > prompt "Processor Type" > > depends on PPC32 > > - default 6xx > > help > > There are five families of 32 bit PowerPC chips supported. > > The most common ones are the desktop and server CPUs (601, 603, > > It looks like you couldn't decide which route to take here. You leave the > 'depends on PPC32' above, but
The choice depends on PPC32 since there is no choice .. yet for 64-bit. I removed the default 6xx because I noticed a warning from Kbuild that it doesn't like defaults for choices. > > config PPC_85xx > > bool "Freescale 85xx" > > + depends on PPC32 Ah right, I can remove these. Initially, the choice was available for both 32 and 64 bit ;-) That's an artifact of the patch splitting since I only introduce Book3E for 64-bit later. > also add it (redundantly) in all other processor types except BOOK3S, and Right. As I said, artifact of the split. I'll remove them for now. > > -# Until we have a choice of exclusive CPU types on 64-bit, we always > > -# use PPC_BOOK3S. On 32-bit, this is equivalent to 6xx which is > > -# "classic" MMU > > - > > config PPC_BOOK3S > > - def_bool y > > - depends on PPC64 || 6xx > > + default y > > + depends on PPC64 > > + select PPC_FPU > > + > > then add the other BOOK3S option depending on PPC64. Even though > it might look silly to have a choice statement with just one possible > option in case of PPC64, why not integrate it right away, for consistency > reasons. It seems strange to have the same Kconfig symbol both > as a choice and a simple bool. Well, I was hesitating. The initial patch added the choice with E and S for both 32 and 64 as you can guess. But we aren't ready for that yet. I suppose I can do a one-option choice in the meantime. > > @@ -125,6 +131,7 @@ config BOOKE > > config FSL_BOOKE > > bool > > depends on E200 || E500 > > + select PPC_BOOK3E_MMU > > default y > > > > config FSL_EMB_PERFMON > > @@ -203,7 +210,7 @@ config SPE > > > > config PPC_STD_MMU > > bool > > - depends on 6xx || PPC64 > > + depends on PPC_BOOK3S > > default y > > > > config PPC_STD_MMU_32 > > This also feels inconsistent, using a 'select' in one case and 'depends on' > in the > other one. The two ways are obviously equivalent, but I find it a bit > confusing > to mix them. Right, I should probably use select in both. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
