On 6/6/07, Stephen Neuendorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why still have XILINX_EDK? I thought you meant replace > > XILINX_EDK with XILINX_DRIVERS. > > Yes, that's what I was suggesting. > But I think that Andrei still wants to use XILINX_EDK to pull in the > stuff in drivers/xilinx_common. > > # The Xilinx OS common code > obj-$(CONFIG_XILINX_EDK) += xbasic_types.o xpacket_fifo_l_v2_00_a.o \ > xpacket_fifo_v2_00_a.o xversion.o \ > xdma_channel.o xdma_channel_sg.o > > Which you wouldn't want if you were able to build a kernel completely > from 'non-edk' drivers.
Fair enough, but that's only an issue for vendor trees. None of this code will be going into mainline. Any of it that does get into good shape should probably go under drivers/misc, and have the drivers select only the pieces that are needed (with finer-grain CONFIG_ items). A blanked CONFIG_XILINX_EDK for random stuff is not a good idea. Cheers, g. > > Steve > > > -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (403) 399-0195 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-embedded mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
