[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:0.171 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site