On 05.06.2025 18:48, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Thu Jun 5, 2025 at 4:20 PM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 05.06.2025 16:15, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>> On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 4:24 PM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 02.06.2025 16:19, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 9:51 AM C
On Thu Jun 5, 2025 at 4:20 PM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.06.2025 16:15, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 4:24 PM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 02.06.2025 16:19, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 9:51 AM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.05.2025 14:02, A
On 05.06.2025 16:15, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 4:24 PM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 02.06.2025 16:19, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>> On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 9:51 AM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.05.2025 14:02, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/asm-generic/d
On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 4:24 PM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.06.2025 16:19, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 9:51 AM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 30.05.2025 14:02, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
--- a/xen/include/asm-generic/device.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-generic/device.h
On 02.06.2025 16:19, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 9:51 AM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 30.05.2025 14:02, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-generic/device.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-generic/device.h
>>> @@ -6,9 +6,7 @@
>>>
>>> enum device_type
>>> {
>>> -#
On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 9:51 AM CEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.05.2025 14:02, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-generic/device.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-generic/device.h
>> @@ -6,9 +6,7 @@
>>
>> enum device_type
>> {
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE
>> DEV_DT,
>> -#endif
On 30.05.2025 14:02, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/asm-generic/device.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-generic/device.h
> @@ -6,9 +6,7 @@
>
> enum device_type
> {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE
> DEV_DT,
> -#endif
Why would this enumerator need exposing on a non-DT arch? In fact
On Fri, 30 May 2025, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> There's some pretense this header may be used without
> CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE, but that's just wishful thinking. Only x86 lacks
> that option, and it fully overrides this header, typedeffing struct
> pci_dev to be device_t.
>
> Furthermore there's a