On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 16:22 +0000, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > Was this a Freescale internal decision, or is this a generic 85xx > decision? > > For the record, I'm in favor in leaving out support for 32-bit address > map in the upstream kernel, and having it be an option on the SDK > only. However, in order to do that, we cannot have "select > PHYS_64BIT" in the Kconfigs. It needs to be in the defconfigs > instead. Putting it in the defconfig will eliminate the need to have > it in every Kconfig block, so I think that's an improvement. > > Then the SDK can include a defconfig that does not have PHYS_64BIT > defined. And the SDK can include 32-bit U-Boots and 32-bit device > trees for any board where Freescale determines there is a need. > > I think Leo's patch simplifies things for everyone.
Sorry, I fail to see how... it basically makes all those boards non-functional even when enabled... What's wrong with the current scheme ? Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
