My feeling is if the drivers should be consistently enabled or not, then we should enforce that consistency by the structure of the code.
Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grant Likely > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:06 PM > To: Stephen Neuendorffer > Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Xilinx: Add generic configuration option to enable all xilinx drivers. > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hmm... interesting points. I guess my feeling was that XILINX_DRIVERS could > > be a more broadly configurable option, with some of these ideas in mind. > > Currently, it's hidden by default, but we could easily change this to be > > visible by default, or selected by a broader number of architectures. I > > tend to think about them as a group: What if x86 *did* support the > > primitives needed by these drivers, then if the individual drivers depend on > > XILINX_DRIVERS, then the modification could be made in one spot. By your > > suggestion, we would have to modify each one independantly. > > Heh; it's not *that* many drivers and it's just Kconfig stuff which is > real easy to change. My preference would be to eliminate > XILINX_DRIVERS entirely, but I'm not going to fight about it. :-) > > Cheers, > g. > > -- > Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. > Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
