On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:29:22AM +0000, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > On 08.02.22 12:15, Jan Beulich wrote: > > Yes, but I'm not sure this is going to remain just a single use. > > Furthermore every CONFIG_<arch> is problematic as soon as a new port > > is being worked on. If we wanted to go with a CONFIG_<arch> here, imo > > it ought to be CONFIG_X86, not CONFIG_ARM, as I/O ports are really an > > x86-specific thing (which has propagated into other architectures in > > more or less strange ways, but never as truly I/O ports). > I am fine using CONFIG_X86 > @Roger, are you ok with that?
I guess if that's the only instance of having diverging behavior because of the lack of IO ports I'm fine with using CONFIG_X86. Thanks, Roger.
