On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 01:07:05AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 01:13 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 03:41:41PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > The hardware is only present on those machines, and the driver > > > depends on infrastructure which is selected by the Kconfig for > > > cell blades. > > > > Wouldn't it make more sense to make a separate (AXON_MSI) config option > > depend on PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE? > > Maybe, it would make the makefile cleaner, at the expense of a bit more > Kconfig. I'm not sure what people prefer, I guess I'm neutral and you're > voting for the latter, so I'll respin it that way :)
Yeah, I'm not really that picky either, it just set off a red flag w.r.t. setting a bad precedence on ifdef:ing in the makefile instead of Kconfig engineering. Slippery slope and all that. -Olof _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
