On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 12:43 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On Mon, 19 May 2014 11:34:53 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 16:52 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Le Friday 16 May 2014 à 17:30 +0300, Andy Shevchenko a écrit : > > > > X86_32 is not what you are thinking. > > > > > > Can you please be more specific / less cryptic? > > > > You narrow requirements to X86_32, meanwhile X86 selects much more even > > in 32bits case. > > Why should I care about what X86 selects? > > > I think you probably want to use X86 && !64BIT. > > As I read arch/x86/Kconfig, X86 && !64BIT is always the same as X86_32, > so that's more complex and doesn't buy us anything. > > In other words, I still do not understand what you are trying to tell > me. If you have concrete examples of why depending on X86_32 would be > wrong, please show them. I'd be kind of surprised though, given that > 115 Kconfig entries already depend on X86_32. Oh, my bad. Totally mess this thing with X86_X32. Sorry for noise. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
