linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

CONFIG_XIP_ROM vs. CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL

To: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: CONFIG_XIP_ROM vs. CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL
From: Tim Bird <tim.bird@am.sony.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:07:17 -0700
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-sh-ctl@m17n.org, CE Linux Developers List <celinux-dev@tree.celinuxforum.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
I'm looking at some sources for kernel Execute-in-place (XIP).

I see references to CONFIG_XIP_ROM and CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL,
in different architecture branches of the same kernel
source tree.

Is this difference merely the result of inconsistent
usage, or is there a functional difference between
these two options?

I can imagine that CONFIG_XIP_ROM is intended only to
handle XIP in ROM, and that CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL possibly
handles additional cases like XIP in flash.  However,
before jumping to that conclusion I thought I would
ask if there is some intention behind the different
config names.

Thanks,

=============================
Tim Bird
Architecture Group Co-Chair
CE Linux Forum
Senior Staff Engineer
Sony Electronics
E-mail: Tim.Bird (at) am.sony.com
=============================



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>