Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 for-4.8] tools/libacpi: Fix compilation when cross building the tools

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 28.11.16 at 14:37, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28/11/16 13:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> However, ...
>>
>>> --- a/tools/libacpi/mk_dsdt.c
>>> +++ b/tools/libacpi/mk_dsdt.c
>>> @@ -17,9 +17,9 @@
>>>  #include <getopt.h>
>>>  #include <stdlib.h>
>>>  #include <stdbool.h>
>>> -#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86)
>>>  #include <xen/hvm/hvm_info_table.h>
>>> -#elif defined(__aarch64__)
>>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARM_64)
>>>  #include <xen/arch-arm.h>
>>>  #endif
>>
>> .. for this and at least some of the others I wonder whether from an
>> abstract pov these shouldn't be CONFIG_ARM. Agreed, it won't
>> matter as long as there's no use of ACPI on ARM32, hence my R-b
>> stands either way, but I'd like you to clarify whether it really should
>> go in this way.
> 
> To answer the question, I am not aware of any plan to have support for 
> ACPI on ARM32.

Except that this wasn't the question.

> Regardless the answer, this would be a separate patch as CONFIG_ARM_64 
> is the correct define to match __aarch64__. Let's not mix improvement 
> and bug fix.

Well, it looks even more suspicious to me now than it did before
that both x86-32 and x86-64 are being taken care of, but only
arm64. But anyway ...

Jan


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