[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 24/25] NUMA: Move CONFIG_NUMA to common Kconfig
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, vijay.kilari@xxxxxxxxx
- From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 11:18:56 +0100
- Cc: tim@xxxxxxx, sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx, wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx, George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Vijaya Kumar K <Vijaya.Kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2017 10:19:12 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
Hi Jan,
On 31/05/17 11:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.03.17 at 17:53, <vijay.kilari@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- a/xen/common/Kconfig
+++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
@@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ config HAS_GDBSX
config HAS_IOPORTS
bool
+config NUMA
+ def_bool y
+ depends on HAS_PDX
What makes necessary this dependency?
IIRC, this is because the numa code is using PDX helpers.
--- a/xen/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
+++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
@@ -4,6 +4,3 @@ config ACPI
config ACPI_LEGACY_TABLES_LOOKUP
bool
-
-config NUMA
- bool
This makes clear that so far this is an option which architectures
are expected to select. I think we want it to remain that way, but
if we didn't you should remove the existing select(s).
Also, does it really matter much whether this is under drivers/acpi/
or common/? After all ACPI appears to be a prereq on ARM too.
ACPI is not a prereq for NUMA. You can use it with Device Tree too.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
