Re: {arch}/conf/DEFAULTS and uart

On Fri Sep 10 10, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, September 09, 2010 3:50:45 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > On Thu Sep  9 10, Alexander Best wrote:
> > > On Thu Sep  9 10, Alexander Best wrote:
> > > > hi there,
> > > > 
> > > > except for arm most archs seem to enforce uart support in conf/DEFAULTS. is
> > > > this really necessary? shouldn't DEFAULTS only contain vital devices/options
> > > > without a kernel on a specific arch won't function at all?
> > > 
> > > jhb just explained to me, that the uart entry in DEFAULTS is not a controller
> > > or something like that, but the uart backend to use *if* uart gets defined in
> > > the kernel config.
> > > 
> > > sorry for the noise folks.
> > 
> > however i found some missing comments and incorrect syntax which i fixed.
> > 
> > see the attached patch.
> 
> I think the ia64 ordering for 'io and mem' is probably more correct
> (alphabetically sorted), so I would fix i386 and amd64 and leave ia64 alone.
> 
> The powerpc 'machine' changes are wrong I think as it would break GENERIC64
> and powerpc64 kernel configs in general.  Nathan purposefully removed
> 'machine' from the powerpc DEFAULTS.

here's try #2. ;)

cheers.
alex

>  
> -- 
> John Baldwin

-- 
a13x