On 03.06.2025 09:06, Orzel, Michal wrote: > > > On 03/06/2025 09:02, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 03.06.2025 08:54, Orzel, Michal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 02/06/2025 10:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 27.05.2025 10:21, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>>> There's nothing Arm specific about this feature. Move it to common as >>>>> part of a larger activity to commonalize device tree related features. >>>>> For now, select it only for ARM until others (e.g. RISC-V) verify it >>>>> works for them too. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.or...@amd.com> >>>> >>>> I realize this was already committed, but ... >>>> >>>>> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig >>>>> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig >>>>> @@ -162,6 +162,14 @@ config STATIC_MEMORY >>>>> >>>>> If unsure, say N. >>>>> >>>>> +config STATIC_EVTCHN >>>>> + bool "Static event channel support on a dom0less system" >>>>> + depends on DOM0LESS_BOOT && ARM >>>> >>>> ... I think we should strive to avoid such arch dependencies; they simply >>>> don't scale very well. Instead (if needed) HAS_* should be introduced, >>>> which >>>> each interested arch can select. In the case here, however, perhaps >>>> DOM0LESS_BOOT alone would have been sufficient as a dependency? >>> What if e.g. RISC-V wants to enable dom0less but not static >>> evtchn/memory/shmem >>> because there are some functions to be implemented and they don't want to >>> do it >>> now? Protecting with just DOM0LESS_BOOT would not be sufficient here. >> >> Imo a transient(!) "depends on !RISCV" would in principle be fine, if ... > In this case, how can I know that upfront? When moving a feature I need to put > some dependencies. At that point I don't know RISCV, PPC plans.
You don't need to know this up front, do you? Neither of the two presently selects DOM0LESS_BOOT afaict, and hence such a transient negative dependency would (if necessary in the first place) be added when adding such a select. Jan
