[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] kbuild: default kernel image
    On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:38:07AM +0100, Russell King wrote:

    > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 06:40:20AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > > The advantage is that you now have a good place to document all of
    > > these formats - your Kconfig file.
    > > And you select the default target for the user.
    > >
    > > How did I know uboot required mkimage before - now it can be documented
    > > in Kconfig.
    > > So the situation above is actually a good example why it is whortwhile
    > > to move the kernel image selection to the config stage.
    > >
    > > If they all should be part of the kernel build is another discussion.
    > You missed my point.
    > How does a user know which format they need to build the kernel with
    > _if_ the kernel configuration contains all the formats and the boot
    > loader documentation fails to mention it?

    I think what Sam was saying is that you document what boards are
    supported by what firmwares, in the Kconfig. But what I don't think Sam
    saw would be just how ugly that's going to look (and become another
    point where every new board port touches, and possibly conflicts with
    another new board port).

    > As I tried to point out, boot loaders on ARM historically seem to have
    > been "My First ARM Project" type things so there's lots of them out
    > there - there aren't 3 or so found on x86.

    And that's another good reason not to.

    Tom Rini
    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:0.023 / U:45.448 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site