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.
Regards,
Boqun
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
