| To: | Tim Bird <tim.bird@am.sony.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: CONFIG_XIP_ROM vs. CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:09:27 +0200 |
| Cc: | linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 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> |
| In-reply-to: | <40915265.2050906@am.sony.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <40915265.2050906@am.sony.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:07:17PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote: > 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. Since you copied linux-mips - neither option is implemented for MIPS ... Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | CONFIG_XIP_ROM vs. CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL, Tim Bird |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: CONFIG_XIP_ROM vs. CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL, Nicolas Pitre |
| Previous by Thread: | CONFIG_XIP_ROM vs. CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL, Tim Bird |
| Next by Thread: | Re: CONFIG_XIP_ROM vs. CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL, Ralf Baechle |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |