On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:36:39AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 19:02 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > We agree to disagree. For example, in all probability, ARM will never
> > see a TPM chip, yet it's offered for selection. Given that, does it
> > really make sense to offer it for ARM?
>
> You speak of _probability_. Yes, it makes sense to offer it as an
> _option_ for ARM. It just doesn't make sense to put it in the defconfig
> for any of the existing platforms.
>
> Nobody expects 'allyesconfig' to be something you'd actually want to
> _use_.
In which case why do we restrict floppy to only those machines which
could have floppy? Why do we restrict IDE to only those platforms
which may have IDE?
Hint: there's already a precident established for *not* offering
configuration options which are pointless.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
