Re: compile quirk linux-2.6.24 (with workaround)
On 2/5/08, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > I mean, if you have not included 4xx support in the kernel, as is the
> > case here, it does not make sense to add the 4xx bootwrapper code, no ?
>
> It does, in a manner. There are both generic and platform specific
> pieces to the bootwrapper. Having everything always built helps keep
> the generic bits from breaking, which is important as they're often
> tightly coupled. That's at least the reason I can think of.
>
> The powerpc maintainers have been over this quite a bit and I don't see
> it changing anytime soon.
That would mean we're dropping support for compilers which can't build
405/440 specific wrapper bits (or other core specific quirks that need
to go in the wrapper) That doesn't sound appropriate to me.
Cheers,
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
Reply to: