[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] kbuild
    On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 08:41:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
    > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:40:29PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > >
    > > > Hi Andrew. Here follows a number of kbuild patches.
    > > >
    > > > The first replaces kbuild-specify-default-target-during-configuration.patch
    > > >
    > > > They have seen ligiht testing here, but on the other hand the do not touch
    > > > any critical part of kbuild.
    > > >
    > > > Patches:
    > > >
    > > > default kernel image: Specify default target at config
    > > > time rather then hardcode it.
    > > > Only enabled for i386 for now.
    > >
    > > While I'd guess this is better than the patch it's replacing, given that
    > > most i386 kernels are 'bzImage', what's wrong with the current logic
    > > that picks out what to do for the all target now?
    > Compared to the original behaviour where the all: target picked the default
    > target for a given architecture, this patch adds the following:

    This isn't the case on ARM. I've always told people 'make zImage'
    or 'make Image'. I've never told people to use just 'make' on its
    own - in fact, I've never used 'make' on its own with the kernel.

    > - One has to select the default kernel image only once
    > when configuring the kernel.
    > - There exist a possibility to add more than half a line of text
    > describing individual targets. All relevant information can be
    > specified in the help section in the Kconfig file

    You can't fit details for 500 platforms into half a line of text.

    > If we remove the current support for for example uboot we create an
    > additional step in between the make and copy image.

    uboot support on ARM was only recently added, and only happened
    because I happened to misread the patch. Had I been more on the
    ball, the support would NOT have been merged. However, as it did
    get merged, I didn't want to create extra noise by taking it out.

    Please don't take this as acceptance that throwing the uboot crap
    into the kernel for ARM was something I found agreeable. I still
    find it distasteful that boot loaders have to define their own
    image formats and the kernel has to conform to the boot loader
    authors whims.

    Russell King
    Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux -
    maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA -
    2.6 Serial core
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.022 / U:33.532 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site