Re: [PATCH 1/5] kbuild: default kernel image

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:38:07AM +0100, Russell King wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 06:40:20AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > The advantage is that you now have a good place to document all of
> > these formats - your Kconfig file.
> > And you select the default target for the user.
> > 
> > How did I know uboot required mkimage before - now it can be documented
> > in Kconfig.
> > So the situation above is actually a good example why it is whortwhile
> > to move the kernel image selection to the config stage.
> > 
> > If they all should be part of the kernel build is another discussion.
> 
> You missed my point.
> 
> How does a user know which format they need to build the kernel with
> _if_ the kernel configuration contains all the formats and the boot
> loader documentation fails to mention it?

I think what Sam was saying is that you document what boards are
supported by what firmwares, in the Kconfig.  But what I don't think Sam
saw would be just how ugly that's going to look (and become another
point where every new board port touches, and possibly conflicts with
another new board port).

> As I tried to point out, boot loaders on ARM historically seem to have
> been "My First ARM Project" type things so there's lots of them out
> there - there aren't 3 or so found on x86.

And that's another good reason not to.

-- 
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/