On 19/10/2018 16:43, Peter Maydell wrote: > I think if we want to support this for downstreams we need > to look at something better than the default-configs/ > mechanism for it. (Perhaps the kconfig-alike Paolo mentioned > in a previous thread?)
True, but having more CONFIG_* symbols does not complicate the switch to a system like that one. > My dividing line for "should something go in a specific > architecture's default-configs/ list" is "is this an SoC > or real piece of hardware that is naturally limited to > one or a few SoCs". I tend to agree, but I'd rather have a separate CONFIG_* symbol as soon as two different *targets* (aka default-configs/*.mak files) use a device. So the SPARC change that you mention would actually be a good reason to introduce CONFIG_UNIMP, for example. Paolo
