On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 22:46 +0200, Michal Marek wrote: > Dne 24.9.2015 v 00:16 Michael Ellerman napsal(a): > > > > > > On 23 September 2015 19:50:52 GMT+10:00, Michal Marek > > <mma...@suse.com> wrote: > >> On 2015-09-23 07:40, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >>> +else ifneq ($(wildcard > >> arch/$(SRCARCH)/configs/$(KBUILD_DEFCONFIG)),) > >>> @$(kecho) "*** Default configuration is based on > >> '$(KBUILD_DEFCONFIG)'" > >>> $(Q)$< $(silent) > >> --defconfig=arch/$(SRCARCH)/configs/$(KBUILD_DEFCONFIG) $(Kconfig) > >>> +else + @$(kecho) "*** Default configuration is based on target > >> '$(KBUILD_DEFCONFIG)'" > >>> + $(Q)$(MAKE) -f $(srctree)/Makefile $(KBUILD_DEFCONFIG) endif > >> > >> What is the anticipated usage of this? The patch is not needed to > >> make > >> > >> make ppc64le_defconfig > >> > >> work with the second patch. If it was, this would create a loop > >> anyway. > > > > The idea is to make 'make defconfig' work when KBUILD_DEFCONFIG is > > ppc64le_defconfig (which happens for us when uname returns ppc64le) > > and additionally when ppc64le_defconfig is not a real file. > > Ah, that makes sense. You can add > > Acked-by: Michal Marek <mma...@suse.com> > > if you want.
Thanks. I'll assume by that you mean you're happy if I take both patches through the powerpc tree. cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
