Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 22/22] xen/arm64: Add ACPI support

[Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2016/3/17 19:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 17.03.16 at 12:03, <zhaoshenglong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 2016/3/17 18:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>> On 17.03.16 at 10:41, <zhaoshenglong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> >>> > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/config.h
>>>>> >>> > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/config.h
>>>>> >>> > @@ -31,6 +31,10 @@
>>>>> >>> >  
>>>>> >>> >  #define CONFIG_ARM_L1_CACHE_SHIFT 7 /* XXX */
>>>>> >>> >  
>>>>> >>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>> >>> > +#define CONFIG_ACPI_BOOT 1
>>>>> >>> > +#endif
>>> >> Do we think that ACPI without ACPI_BOOT is useful for anything?
>>> >> If not, I think we should just get rid of the latter in common code
>>> >> (x86 could be cleaned up separately), and hence ARM wouldn't
>>> >> have a need for this ugliness. If however we do, then this should
>>> >> be switched to Kconfig (at once on x86 then).
>> > I think we could replace CONFIG_ACPI_BOOT with CONFIG_ACPI. Maybe we
>> > could clean up them on top this of patch.
> Cleaning up the sole common code use should be done as a prereq,
> or even inside this patch. Doing such cleanup on top is a bad idea:
> We should aim at not introducing any further CONFIG_* #define-s
> in headers, now that we have the Kconfig machinery in place.
Ok, so it's fine to you that replace CONFIG_ACPI_BOOT with CONFIG_ACPI
in common and x86 codes, right? If so, I'll add a patch to that before
thia patch.

Thanks,
-- 
Shannon


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel