On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 01:05:26AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > How about letting CONFIG_ARM to select HAVE_PCI ? > > > > > I applied 1/9, 3/9, 4/9, 5/9. > (I think 2/9 should be squashed to 9/9) > > As Russell pointed out, we need to avoid > the unmet dependency. Yes, I think the HAVE_PCI is probably the nicest way, but we'll need to wait what Russell as the maintainer wants. > Are you planning to send > the updated version for 6/9 through - 9/9 ? > > If so, could you please rebase 6/9 > so that it is cleanly applicable ? Will do once I find some time after rc1.
