| Message ID | e9c405aaec255c2a3d34209fc35ae093fcae8efc.1236228043.git.michael@ellerman.id.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Delegated to: | Benjamin Herrenschmidt |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 03:41:41PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > The hardware is only present on those machines, and the driver > depends on infrastructure which is selected by the Kconfig for > cell blades. Wouldn't it make more sense to make a separate (AXON_MSI) config option depend on PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE? -Olof > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile > @@ -28,7 +28,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SPU_BASE) += spu_callbacks.o spu_base.o \ > $(spu-manage-y) \ > spufs/ > > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE),y) > obj-$(CONFIG_PCI_MSI) += axon_msi.o > +endif > > # qpace setup > obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_CELL_QPACE) += qpace_setup.o
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 01:13 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 03:41:41PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > The hardware is only present on those machines, and the driver > > depends on infrastructure which is selected by the Kconfig for > > cell blades. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to make a separate (AXON_MSI) config option > depend on PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE? Maybe, it would make the makefile cleaner, at the expense of a bit more Kconfig. I'm not sure what people prefer, I guess I'm neutral and you're voting for the latter, so I'll respin it that way :) cheers
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 01:07:05AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 01:13 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 03:41:41PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > The hardware is only present on those machines, and the driver > > > depends on infrastructure which is selected by the Kconfig for > > > cell blades. > > > > Wouldn't it make more sense to make a separate (AXON_MSI) config option > > depend on PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE? > > Maybe, it would make the makefile cleaner, at the expense of a bit more > Kconfig. I'm not sure what people prefer, I guess I'm neutral and you're > voting for the latter, so I'll respin it that way :) Yeah, I'm not really that picky either, it just set off a red flag w.r.t. setting a bad precedence on ifdef:ing in the makefile instead of Kconfig engineering. Slippery slope and all that. -Olof
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile index 43eccb2..9330cf8 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile @@ -28,7 +28,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SPU_BASE) += spu_callbacks.o spu_base.o \ $(spu-manage-y) \ spufs/ +ifeq ($(CONFIG_PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE),y) obj-$(CONFIG_PCI_MSI) += axon_msi.o +endif # qpace setup obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_CELL_QPACE) += qpace_setup.o
The hardware is only present on those machines, and the driver depends on infrastructure which is selected by the Kconfig for cell blades. Reported-by: Mikey "Randconfig Monkey" Neuling Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au> --- arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)