Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:02:38 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mfd: kconfig exposing unbuildable driver |
| |
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:01:53 +0100 Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:47:18PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Russell King wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Russell King wrote: > > > > > > > > > That was my initial approach as well, which got shot down by Andrew > > > > > Morton and others as being unacceptable. > > > > > > > > where? > > > > > > In private mail. > > > > > > > why? > > > > > > Well, first I need to gain the permission of Andrew to post his private > > > message. I'm not being subborn here - I _do_ _not_ reproduce private > > > messages in public without prior permission. > > > > Sure, understood. > > > > > > Seems like we need to push back on that part. > > > > > > Talk to Andrew then. > > > > He is cc-ed (although traveling much this week IIRC). > > In which case, since it's likely I won't get a reply in the next hour > (which'll delay my response by 24 hours) let me paraphrase what Andrew > said. > > Andrew believes that it is beneficial to have other architectures, > particularly x86, build other architectures drivers.
Well. I pointed out that there are arguments either way, and I do tend to think that the let-x86-compile-it-too approach is perhaps the better one, but that's a 51%/49% opinion. Others disagree and lots and lots of code has gone the other way. Do whatever you think best ;)
| |