Re: [PATCH v3 05/24] C6X: build infrastructure

[Mark Salter]

On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 15:23 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 September 2011, Mark Salter wrote:
> > +comment "Board Selection"
> > +choice
> > +       prompt "Board"
> > +       help
> > +         This option specifies the specific board for which the kernel will be
> > +         compiled.
> > +
> > +config BOARD_DSK6455
> > +       bool "DSK6455"
> > +       select SOC_TMS320C6455
> > +
> > +config BOARD_EVM6457
> > +       bool "EVM6472"
> > +       select SOC_TMS320C6457
> > +
> > +config BOARD_EVM6472
> > +       bool "EVM6472"
> > +       select SOC_TMS320C6472
> > +
> > +config BOARD_EVM6474
> > +       bool "EVM6474"
> > +       select SOC_TMS320C6474
> > +
> > +endchoice
> 
> This really wants to be a flat list instead of a "choice" statement,
> so you can build a kernel for multiple boards at once. Is there a
> reason why this is not possible right now?

This is just left over from the time before device trees. I'll take
the BOARD_foo configs out completely. Its just a matter of selecting
the SOC in the defconfig rather than the board.

> 
> Also, how different are these boards and socs still? Since you are
> based on device trees for hardware configuration, do you actually
> need the options at all?

The BOARD configs can go. The SOC configs will go out when clkdev
stuff gets reworked when generic clock bindings are available.

--Mark



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/