Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:15:35 -0700 | | From | Tom Rini <> | | Subject | Re: CONFIG_TINY |
| |
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 07:43:48PM +0100, Rasmus Andersen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 05:52:59PM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > Matt Porter <porter@cox.net> wrote: > > >Thank you. This is exactly why in the last CONFIG_TINY thread I made > > >it clear that a one-size-fits-all option is not all that helpful for > > >serious embedded systems designers. > > > > > >Collecting these parameters in a single tweaks.h file and perhaps using > > >things like CONFIG_TINY, CONFIG_DESKTOP, CONFIG_FOO as profile selectors > > > > In an ideal world there would be several options invidually > > selectable. > > But there is? Please look at 2.5.44-config. Or did I misunderstand > you. Anyways, this work is far from the point where how this is > selected is a major concern.
There currently isn't a CONFIG_TINY / CONFIG_DESKTOP / CONFIG_FOO. The idea is that all of these changes you're working on to make a smaller kernel shouldn't all be under CONFIG_TINY, but which ones are on / off are read from some sort of template and there's a default 'tiny' template, 'desktop' 'foo', etc template which has some on and some off.
And this is a major concern since many of us who would have to deal with this when it enters the kernel want it to done in a flexible manner initially, not later on.
-- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |