On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 09:33 -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Paul Bolle [130309 11:52]:
> > In the meantime, how do you prefer I solve the (trivial) issue of an
> > useless select for MACH_NOKIA_RM696? Drop that select or add an (equally
> > useless) config entry for MACH_NOKIA_RM696? Or should I
On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 09:33 -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Paul Bolle pebo...@tiscali.nl [130309 11:52]:
In the meantime, how do you prefer I solve the (trivial) issue of an
useless select for MACH_NOKIA_RM696? Drop that select or add an (equally
useless) config entry for MACH_NOKIA_RM696?
* Paul Bolle [130309 11:52]:
> On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 00:01 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > However, going back to that MACH_NOKIA_RM696. If there exists only a
> > select of this symbol and no "config MACH_NOKIA_RM696" entry, then the
> > symbol will never be generated in the
* Paul Bolle pebo...@tiscali.nl [130309 11:52]:
On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 00:01 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
However, going back to that MACH_NOKIA_RM696. If there exists only a
select of this symbol and no config MACH_NOKIA_RM696 entry, then the
symbol will never be generated in
On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 00:01 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> It's actually quite clever. There's two levels to it.
>
> The first is that CONFIG_MACH_xxx result in their machine_is_xxx() macros
> being defined to constant zero if the CONFIG option is not enabled. That
> allows the
On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 00:01 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
It's actually quite clever. There's two levels to it.
The first is that CONFIG_MACH_xxx result in their machine_is_xxx() macros
being defined to constant zero if the CONFIG option is not enabled. That
allows the compiler to
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:02:44PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 09:55 -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Paul Bolle [130308 09:24]:
> > > Should I draft a patch?
> >
> > Sure that would be nice.
>
> One thing I couldn't determine is how the generated mach-types.h header
>
* Paul Bolle [130308 10:06]:
> On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 09:55 -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Paul Bolle [130308 09:24]:
> > > Should I draft a patch?
> >
> > Sure that would be nice.
>
> One thing I couldn't determine is how the generated mach-types.h header
> handles multiple CONFIG_MACH_*
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 09:55 -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Paul Bolle [130308 09:24]:
> > Should I draft a patch?
>
> Sure that would be nice.
One thing I couldn't determine is how the generated mach-types.h header
handles multiple CONFIG_MACH_* macros.
If both CONFIG_MACH_FOO and
* Paul Bolle [130308 09:24]:
> On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 08:35 -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > I think the righ fix is to just add
> >
> > config MACH_NOKIA_RM680
> > bool
>
> I guess you meant MACH_NOKIA_RM696.
Ooops yes.
> > to the mach-omap2/Kconfig like we have for n8x0 also.
>
> Should
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 08:35 -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> I think the righ fix is to just add
>
> config MACH_NOKIA_RM680
> bool
I guess you meant MACH_NOKIA_RM696.
> to the mach-omap2/Kconfig like we have for n8x0 also.
Should I draft a patch?
Paul Bolle
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 18:11 +0200, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 11:29:56AM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > When support was added for Nokia N9 (RM-696), with commit
> > 63fc5f3bb3d0ca9ab4767a801b518aa6335f87ad ("ARM: OMAP: add minimal
> > support for Nokia RM-696"), a select
* Aaro Koskinen [130308 08:16]:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 11:29:56AM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > When support was added for Nokia N9 (RM-696), with commit
> > 63fc5f3bb3d0ca9ab4767a801b518aa6335f87ad ("ARM: OMAP: add minimal
> > support for Nokia RM-696"), a select statement for MACH_NOKIA_RM696
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 11:29:56AM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> When support was added for Nokia N9 (RM-696), with commit
> 63fc5f3bb3d0ca9ab4767a801b518aa6335f87ad ("ARM: OMAP: add minimal
> support for Nokia RM-696"), a select statement for MACH_NOKIA_RM696 was
> added to the tree. But there's no
When support was added for Nokia N9 (RM-696), with commit
63fc5f3bb3d0ca9ab4767a801b518aa6335f87ad ("ARM: OMAP: add minimal
support for Nokia RM-696"), a select statement for MACH_NOKIA_RM696 was
added to the tree. But there's no Kconfig symbol with that name. That
symbol would be superfluous,
When support was added for Nokia N9 (RM-696), with commit
63fc5f3bb3d0ca9ab4767a801b518aa6335f87ad (ARM: OMAP: add minimal
support for Nokia RM-696), a select statement for MACH_NOKIA_RM696 was
added to the tree. But there's no Kconfig symbol with that name. That
symbol would be superfluous, since
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 11:29:56AM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
When support was added for Nokia N9 (RM-696), with commit
63fc5f3bb3d0ca9ab4767a801b518aa6335f87ad (ARM: OMAP: add minimal
support for Nokia RM-696), a select statement for MACH_NOKIA_RM696 was
added to the tree. But there's no
* Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi [130308 08:16]:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 11:29:56AM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
When support was added for Nokia N9 (RM-696), with commit
63fc5f3bb3d0ca9ab4767a801b518aa6335f87ad (ARM: OMAP: add minimal
support for Nokia RM-696), a select statement for
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 18:11 +0200, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 11:29:56AM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
When support was added for Nokia N9 (RM-696), with commit
63fc5f3bb3d0ca9ab4767a801b518aa6335f87ad (ARM: OMAP: add minimal
support for Nokia RM-696), a select statement for
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 08:35 -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
I think the righ fix is to just add
config MACH_NOKIA_RM680
bool
I guess you meant MACH_NOKIA_RM696.
to the mach-omap2/Kconfig like we have for n8x0 also.
Should I draft a patch?
Paul Bolle
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
* Paul Bolle pebo...@tiscali.nl [130308 09:24]:
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 08:35 -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
I think the righ fix is to just add
config MACH_NOKIA_RM680
bool
I guess you meant MACH_NOKIA_RM696.
Ooops yes.
to the mach-omap2/Kconfig like we have for n8x0 also.
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 09:55 -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Paul Bolle pebo...@tiscali.nl [130308 09:24]:
Should I draft a patch?
Sure that would be nice.
One thing I couldn't determine is how the generated mach-types.h header
handles multiple CONFIG_MACH_* macros.
If both CONFIG_MACH_FOO
* Paul Bolle pebo...@tiscali.nl [130308 10:06]:
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 09:55 -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Paul Bolle pebo...@tiscali.nl [130308 09:24]:
Should I draft a patch?
Sure that would be nice.
One thing I couldn't determine is how the generated mach-types.h header
handles
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:02:44PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 09:55 -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Paul Bolle pebo...@tiscali.nl [130308 09:24]:
Should I draft a patch?
Sure that would be nice.
One thing I couldn't determine is how the generated mach-types.h header
24 matches
Mail list logo
