On 2/5/08, Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
