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

Reply via email to