On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 10:02 AM Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> Masahiro Yamada writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:50 PM Christophe Leroy
> > wrote:
> >> Le 02/06/2025 à 18:32, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> >> > The extra-y syntax is planned for deprecation because it is similar
> >> > to always-y.
Masahiro Yamada writes:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:50 PM Christophe Leroy
> wrote:
>> Le 02/06/2025 à 18:32, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
>> > The extra-y syntax is planned for deprecation because it is similar
>> > to always-y.
>> >
>> > When building the boot wrapper, always-y and extra-y are equi
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:50 PM Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 02/06/2025 à 18:32, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> > The extra-y syntax is planned for deprecation because it is similar
> > to always-y.
> >
> > When building the boot wrapper, always-y and extra-y are equivalent.
> > Use always-y ins
Le 02/06/2025 à 18:32, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
The extra-y syntax is planned for deprecation because it is similar
to always-y.
When building the boot wrapper, always-y and extra-y are equivalent.
Use always-y instead.
In arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile, I added ifdef KBUILD_BUILTIN to
keep t
The extra-y syntax is planned for deprecation because it is similar
to always-y.
When building the boot wrapper, always-y and extra-y are equivalent.
Use always-y instead.
In arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile, I added ifdef KBUILD_BUILTIN to
keep the current behavior: prom_init_check is skipped when b
