On 24 November 2011 21:46, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 24.11.2011 22:31, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> On 24 November 2011 20:19, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>> Am 24.11.2011 20:41, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>>> On 22 November 2011 04:34, Peter Chubb <peter.ch...@nicta.com.au> wrote: >>>>> +obj-arm-y += imx_serial.o imx_timer.o imx_avic.o >>>>> +obj-arm-y += kzm.o >>>> >>>> It would be better to add the devices to the makefile in their >>>> corresponding patches, I think. (Don't feel too strongly about that >>>> though so somebody might overrule me.) >>> >>> Well, I do: Without adding them to the Makefile they don't get >>> compile-tested. (I prefer convincing over ruling though.) >> >> Er, which way are you arguing? If patch 1 adds hw/foo.c and also >> adds foo.o to the makefile rune then it gets compile tested... > > I'm asking for Peter C. to revise the series, please.
OK, in that case we agree. -- PMM
