On 11.12.2025 19:43, Mykola Kvach wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
> @@ -137,6 +137,11 @@ config HAS_EX_TABLE
> config HAS_FAST_MULTIPLY
> bool
>
> +config HAS_HWDOM_SHUTDOWN_ON_SUSPEND
> + bool
> + default y
> + depends on !ARM_64 || !SYSTEM_SUSPEND
As written, this would want to be "def_bool y". However, I think I indicated
previously that imo it would be nice if we could stop adding more "depends on"
referencing particular architectures. Instead "select" or "imply" from
xen/arch/<arch>/Kconfig appears more desirable to use in such cases. That way
each arch can control what it wants without needing to touch common code.
As an aside, in the context of PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE it was also said several
times that negative dependencies aren't very nice to have. Here we have no
prompt, so the "allyesconfig" concern doesn't apply, but I still thought I'd
mention this.
> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
> @@ -1324,6 +1324,11 @@ void __domain_crash(struct domain *d)
> domain_shutdown(d, SHUTDOWN_crash);
> }
>
> +static inline bool need_hwdom_shutdown(uint8_t reason)
Personally I think "want" would better express things, but I don't really
mind "need".
> +{
> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAS_HWDOM_SHUTDOWN_ON_SUSPEND) ||
> + reason != SHUTDOWN_suspend;
> +}
Seeing this in use, I wonder if HAS_ is really suitable here.
Jan
