On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 11:25 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:26:44PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 07:58 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > > > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > > > index 2f23133..808a904 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig > > > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ config PPC_CELL_NATIVE > > > > > > config PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE > > > bool "IBM Cell Blade" > > > - depends on PPC64 && PPC_BOOK3S > > > + depends on PPC64 && PPC_BOOK3S && CPU_BIG_ENDIAN > > > > We end up saying this five times. > > > > We already have PPC_BOOK3S_64 which captures the first two conditions, > > should > > we add a PPC_BOOK3S_64_BE which expresses it all? > > I'm not sure whether this is worth.. IMO, we add a config option only if > > 1. we can use this config somewhere in the code, for example, > "#ifdef CONFIG_XXX" > or > > 2. we want to offer a option for users to choose. > > PPC_BOOK3S_64_BE satisfies neither condition. Further more, > CONFIG_PPC64, CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S and CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN all are used > in some #ifdefs in current code. As a newbie of kernel, I'm happy to get > some knowledge like: "If I'm hacking PS3, then #ifndef CONFIG_PPC64 is > guaranteed to be false, so I can just ignore the code guarded by them". > But if we add a PPC_BOOK3S_64_BE, it will take a little more effort to > see this.
Yeah those are good points, so I'll take it as is. Thanks for thinking about it :) cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
