On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:12:12PM +0300, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
> > running "make allnoconfig". To get it, you have to explicitely add support
> > to CONFIG_INPUT_PCSPKR (m or y). I hope this is fine.
> >
> > I'm copying the MIPS maintainer as this patch touches his tree too.
>
> This patch doe
Michael Opdenacker пишет:
> On Friday 18 January 2008, Matt Mackall wrote:
>> Probably makes sense to define it right next to INPUT_PCSPKR in
>> drivers/input/Kconfig.
>>
>> Then do the appropriate fix for all arches mentioned in INPUT_PCSPKR.
>>
>> For extra points, you can move the duplicate pcsp
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:30:11PM +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> On Friday 18 January 2008, Matt Mackall wrote:
> >
> > Probably makes sense to define it right next to INPUT_PCSPKR in
> > drivers/input/Kconfig.
> >
> > Then do the appropriate fix for all arches mentioned in INPUT_PCSPKR.
> >
On Friday 18 January 2008, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> Probably makes sense to define it right next to INPUT_PCSPKR in
> drivers/input/Kconfig.
>
> Then do the appropriate fix for all arches mentioned in INPUT_PCSPKR.
>
> For extra points, you can move the duplicate pcspeaker.c code out of all
> tho
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 19:58 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:37:19AM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 15:39 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > threadinfo-ool.patch: doesnt this break the scheduler?
> >
> > It didn't when I wrote it, 3+ years ago. But
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:37:19AM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 15:39 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > threadinfo-ool.patch: doesnt this break the scheduler?
>
> It didn't when I wrote it, 3+ years ago. But I'm sure it needs to be
> revisited.
>
> > tiny-cflags.patch: obsol
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 15:39 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> threadinfo-ool.patch: doesnt this break the scheduler?
It didn't when I wrote it, 3+ years ago. But I'm sure it needs to be
revisited.
> tiny-cflags.patch: obsolete? Isnt CFLAGS already extendable? Question to
> Sam i guess.
Yup.
--
Ma
* Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > btw., are there any pending arch/x86 bits in -tiny? (stupid
> > question: were can i get the most uptodate version of -tiny from?)
>
> It's not a stupid question. I dropped updating the tree regulary some
> time ago to focus on merging bits and the
On 01/18/2008 06:10 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
>> Sounds fine! Don't hesitate to let us know about the lower-hanging fruit
>> you're thinking about. Here are the main things I have so far:
>>
>> * Ideas in the existing Linux-Tiny patchset.
>> * Disable support for non-Intel processors in x86 (
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 22:59 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 18 January 2008 11:10:19 Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > * Disable support for readahead, page writeback, pdflush and swap
> > > when we have no storage at all (typically booting from an
> > > initramfs). This corresponds
On Friday 18 January 2008 11:10:19 Matt Mackall wrote:
> > * Disable support for readahead, page writeback, pdflush and swap
> > when we have no storage at all (typically booting from an
> > initramfs). This corresponds to 69 KB of source code!
>
> That'd be nice, yes. It would prob
On 1/18/08, Michael Opdenacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you mean "almost nothing"? It still allocates and adds a platform
> device, and the corresponding function always gets called at boot time.
Nothing significant then. I don't see any added functionality from this file.
--
Taral <[EMAI
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:09 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Sounds fine! Don't hesitate to let us know about the lower-hanging
> > > fruit you're thinking about. Here are the main things I have so far:
> > >
> > > * Ideas in the existing Linux-T
* Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds fine! Don't hesitate to let us know about the lower-hanging
> > fruit you're thinking about. Here are the main things I have so far:
> >
> > * Ideas in the existing Linux-Tiny patchset.
> > * Disable support for non-Intel processors i
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 17:29 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> On 01/18/2008 02:50 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 14:03 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> >
> >> However, wouldn't the Makefile look nicer if we introduced a
> >> CONFIG_PCSPEAKER setting as in the mips platform
On 01/18/2008 02:50 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 14:03 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
>
>> However, wouldn't the Makefile look nicer if we introduced a
>> CONFIG_PCSPEAKER setting as in the mips platform? We would just have:
>>
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PCSPEAKER) += pcsp
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 14:57 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> [ Sidenote: "too small" and "too insignificant" is not a patch attribute
> that is in my vocabulary - by definition the best patches are very
> small and very insignificant (they just happen to end up doing
> something cool a 1000 steps
* Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can propose a corresponding patch, and I'd suggest to make
> > CONFIG_PCSPEAKER depend on CONFIG_EMBEDDED.
>
> No, don't. It's fine the way it is. If INPUT_PCSPKR isn't set, we
> don't support the speaker, end of story.
yeah.
> Also, bear in mi
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 14:03 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> However, wouldn't the Makefile look nicer if we introduced a
> CONFIG_PCSPEAKER setting as in the mips platform? We would just have:
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_PCSPEAKER) += pcspeaker.o
Yes, that would be cleaner. Not worth it fo
On 01/18/2008 01:29 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> perhaps the right solution would be to only build it in if
>> CONFIG_PCSPEAKER is "y" or "m". I.e. your original patch?
>>
>
> i've added your patch to x86.git - see below.
>
Many thanks Ingo!
> Index: linux-x86.q/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile
> ===
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> perhaps the right solution would be to only build it in if
> CONFIG_PCSPEAKER is "y" or "m". I.e. your original patch?
i've added your patch to x86.git - see below.
Ingo
--->
Subject: x86: fix unconditional arch/x86/kernel/pcspeaker.o
* Michael Opdenacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/18/2008 12:02 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > why didnt you make this:
> >
> > obj-$(CONFIG_INPUT_PCSPKR)+= pcspeaker.o
> >
> > ?
> >
> Many thanks for your feedback.
>
> That's what I did first, but if CONFIG_INPUT_PCSP
On 01/18/2008 12:02 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> why didnt you make this:
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_INPUT_PCSPKR) += pcspeaker.o
>
> ?
>
Many thanks for your feedback.
That's what I did first, but if CONFIG_INPUT_PCSPKR=m,
arch/x86/kernel/pcspeaker.c gets compiled as a module. While compiling
* Michael Opdenacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> obj-$(CONFIG_PARAVIRT) += paravirt_32.o
> -obj-y+= pcspeaker.o
> -
> obj-$(CONFIG_SCx200) += scx200_32.o
>
> +ifdef CONFIG_INPUT_PCSPKR
> + obj-y += pcspeaker.o
> +end
On 01/18/2008 04:16 AM, Taral wrote:
> On 1/17/08, Michael Opdenacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Another issue would be that we would no longer be able
>> to load the speaker driver module from a kernel which
>> wasn't originally compiled with support for this module.
>>
>
> Have you l
On 1/17/08, Michael Opdenacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another issue would be that we would no longer be able
> to load the speaker driver module from a kernel which
> wasn't originally compiled with support for this module.
Have you looked at pcspeaker.o? As far as I can tell, it does *nothi
On Jan 17 2008 18:05, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
>>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_INPUT_PCSPKR),y)
>>> + obj-y += pcspeaker.o
>>> +endif
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure this does what you want. What if CONFIG_INPUT_PCSPKR = m?
>>
>Does it make sense to compile arch/x86/kernel/pcspeaker.c as a
On Thursday 17 January 2008, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > >> diff -Naur linux-2.6.24-rc8-git1/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile_32
> > >> linux-2.6.24-rc8-git1-nopcspeaker/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile_32
> > >> --- linux-2.6.24-rc8-git1/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile_322008-01-17
> > >> 09:48:58.0 +0100
> >
On 01/17/2008 06:13 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 18:05 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback!
>>
>> On 01/17/2008 05:36 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:43 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 18:05 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks for your feedback!
>
> On 01/17/2008 05:36 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:43 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> >
> >> diff -Naur linux-2.6.24-rc8-git1/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile_32
> >> li
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your feedback!
On 01/17/2008 05:36 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:43 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
>
>> diff -Naur linux-2.6.24-rc8-git1/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile_32
>> linux-2.6.24-rc8-git1-nopcspeaker/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile_32
>> --- linux-2.6.24-
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:43 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> [PATCH] x86: fix unconditional arch/x86/kernel/pcspeaker.c compiling
>
> Applies to 2.6.24-rc8-git1
>
> This patch results from Linux Tiny's efforts to hunt for unnecessary
> code added unconditionally wi
[PATCH] x86: fix unconditional arch/x86/kernel/pcspeaker.c compiling
Applies to 2.6.24-rc8-git1
This patch results from Linux Tiny's efforts to hunt for unnecessary
code added unconditionally with "obj-y +="
This patch make the compilation of arch/x86/kernel/pcspeaker.c
depen
33 matches
Mail list logo
