On 2015-10-01 08:14, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 22:46 +0200, Michal Marek wrote: >> Dne 24.9.2015 v 00:16 Michael Ellerman napsal(a): >>> >>> >>> On 23 September 2015 19:50:52 GMT+10:00, Michal Marek >>> <mma...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> On 2015-09-23 07:40, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>>>> +else ifneq ($(wildcard >>>> arch/$(SRCARCH)/configs/$(KBUILD_DEFCONFIG)),) >>>>> @$(kecho) "*** Default configuration is based on >>>> '$(KBUILD_DEFCONFIG)'" >>>>> $(Q)$< $(silent) >>>> --defconfig=arch/$(SRCARCH)/configs/$(KBUILD_DEFCONFIG) $(Kconfig) >>>>> +else + @$(kecho) "*** Default configuration is based on target >>>> '$(KBUILD_DEFCONFIG)'" >>>>> + $(Q)$(MAKE) -f $(srctree)/Makefile $(KBUILD_DEFCONFIG) endif >>>> >>>> What is the anticipated usage of this? The patch is not needed to >>>> make >>>> >>>> make ppc64le_defconfig >>>> >>>> work with the second patch. If it was, this would create a loop >>>> anyway. >>> >>> The idea is to make 'make defconfig' work when KBUILD_DEFCONFIG is >>> ppc64le_defconfig (which happens for us when uname returns ppc64le) >>> and additionally when ppc64le_defconfig is not a real file. >> >> Ah, that makes sense. You can add >> >> Acked-by: Michal Marek <mma...@suse.com> >> >> if you want. > > Thanks. I'll assume by that you mean you're happy if I take both patches > through the powerpc tree.
Yes, I assumed that this was your plan. Michal _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
