On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> On 31.05.17 at 12:18, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 31/05/17 11:04, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 28.03.17 at 17:53, <vijay.kil...@gmail.com> 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. > > Well, these helpers should have 1:1 translation equivalents for > the non-PDX case; I don't see the need for the dependency.
PDX is necessary. Without that xen fails to compile for ARM. IMO, there is no equivalent non-PDX support available. As it is mandatory config, I propose to remove this dependency with NUMA config. ok? > >>>> --- 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. > > Oh, okay. That should be said in the commit message then. > > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel