On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 09:29:56AM +0000, Graeme Gregory wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 02:46:35PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > On 2015年01月18日 14:31, Jon Masters wrote: > > >Hi Folks, > > > > > >Sorry for top posting from bed. The mainstream servers will all likely do > > > PCIe but there are several that may not. They should not be excluded. That > > said, > > >if we booted a previously built kernel on a system without an MCFG and > > > got no ECAM/root then things would probably still work. > > > > > >I think it'll work out either way but for the record there is no requirement to do PCIe on ARM servers that conform to spec. > > > > OK, Catalin already said that was not the main point of the > > comments for this patch, I think the title and change log > > of the patch is inconsistent with the code makes Catalin confused, > > I will update them in next version. > > Well what we are talking about is the presence of CONFIG_PCI=y which even > in Jons case will be true as he wants to run the same kernel on both > sets of hardware. > > Now the architecture has PCI support I think its safe to remove the make > PCI optional part of the patch as this should be handled runtime not > compile time. I agree, if we never see a reason to build a kernel image with !PCI && ACPI, we can simplify this patch. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
