On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday, May 01, 2015 09:23:38 AM Dan Williams wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thursday, April 30, 2015 05:39:06 PM Dan Williams wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [..] >> > If ND_E820 and ND_ACPI aren't mutually exclusive, I still don't see a good >> > enough reason for asking users about ND_ACPI. Why would I ever say "No" >> > here if I said "Yes" or "Module" to ND_DEVICES? >> >> I agree that if the user selects ND_DEVICES then ND_ACPI should >> probably default on, but otherwise turning it off is a useful option. >> If you know your system is pre-ACPI-6 then why bother including >> support? > > If you're a distro, you don't care. You have to support it regardless. > > You might care if you're an end user building a kernel for yourself and just > for this particular specific machine. Honestly, how many *server* users do > that? > > And fewer user-selectable options means fewer combination of options to test > during development/validation. > > Also unrelated, but applies to this patch. > > Since your new driver will handle device ID ACPI0012 which is defined by the > spec proper, it should go into drivers/acpi/, because there's where such things > go as a rule. Ok, I think the move to drivers/acpi/ will kill two birds with one stone as selecting ACPI_NFIT from there will select the libnd support without prompting. -- 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
