<snip> > > > Question to all, > > > > > > Why don't making above options as choice.. endchoice. > > > > Because that completely breaks "multi-OMAP" builds. > > Having kernels build (and work!) with multiple boards has > been a goal > > for some time now. > > > > Switching that stuff to choice...endchoice would be a major > > regression. I wouldn't merge such a patch. > > Ok, I understand what you're saying.. But I still have some questions: [sp] In this case we can still use my earlier patch posted on 9th JAN. > - Is the above change for being able to select (for example) > 3430SDP when !ARCH_OMAP35XX wrong? That won't allow a kernel > with both 3430SDP and 3530EVM boards support to build, right? > - Do you think the above kind of check is redundant?: > depends on ARCH_OMAP3 && ARCH_OMAP34XX > > Bc i don't think ARCH_OMAP34XX can be when !ARCH_OMAP3... [sp] If we look at only the ARM-Cortex A8, things don't look different but the other differences between OMAP34x and OMAP35x can be cause of concern someday. <snip> Best regards, Sanjeev-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
