Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] powerpc/platforms: Move files from 4xx to 44x | From | Christophe Leroy <> | Date | Tue, 31 Mar 2020 18:19:01 +0200 |
| |
Le 31/03/2020 à 18:04, Arnd Bergmann a écrit : > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 5:26 PM Christophe Leroy > <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote: >> Le 31/03/2020 à 17:14, Arnd Bergmann a écrit : >>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:49 AM Christophe Leroy >>> <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>> Only 44x uses 4xx now, so only keep one directory. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> >>>> --- >>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/44x/Makefile | 9 +++++++- >>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/{4xx => 44x}/cpm.c | 0 >>> >>> No objections to moving everything into one place, but I wonder if the >>> combined name should be 4xx instead of 44x, given that 44x currently >>> include 46x and 47x. OTOH your approach has the advantage of >>> moving fewer files. >>> >> >> In that case, should we also rename CONFIG_44x to CONFIG_4xx ? > > That has the risk of breaking user's defconfig files, but given the > small number of users, it may be nicer for consistency. In either > case, the two symbols should probably hang around as synonyms, > the question is just which one is user visible. >
Not sure it is a good idea to keep two synonyms. In the past we made our best to remove synonyms (We had CONFIG_8xx and CONFIG_PPC_8xx being synonyms, we had CONFIG_6xx and CONFIG_BOOK3S_32 and CONFIG_PPC_STD_MMU_32 being synonyms). I think it is a lot cleaner when we can avoid synonyms.
By the way I already dropped CONFIG_4xx in previous patch (8/11). It was not many 4xx changed to 44x. It would be a lot more in the other way round I'm afraid.
But I agree with you it might be more natural to change to 4xx.
Michael, any preference ?
Christophe
| |