Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:41:11 +0000 | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: [NET] Remove ARM dependency for dm9000 driver |
| |
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:36:39AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 19:02 +0000, Russell King wrote: > > We agree to disagree. For example, in all probability, ARM will never > > see a TPM chip, yet it's offered for selection. Given that, does it > > really make sense to offer it for ARM? > > You speak of _probability_. Yes, it makes sense to offer it as an > _option_ for ARM. It just doesn't make sense to put it in the defconfig > for any of the existing platforms. > > Nobody expects 'allyesconfig' to be something you'd actually want to > _use_.
In which case why do we restrict floppy to only those machines which could have floppy? Why do we restrict IDE to only those platforms which may have IDE?
Hint: there's already a precident established for *not* offering configuration options which are pointless.
-- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - 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/
| |