>>> On 17.05.17 at 22:30, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > On 05/17/2017 07:51 PM, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote: >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>> Well, if the ARM maintainers insist on baking their own thing every >>> time we'd use the M2P if it was there, I think I can't reasonably >>> block this patch. Otoh I'd prefer to not see the non-x86-specific >>> code move to x86/, so perhaps the whole patch wants >>> re-structuring using either a manifest definition in the ARM headers >>> or e.g. CONFIG_M2P (which x86 would select, but ARM wouldn't). >> Jan, I am afraid but I didn't get what you meant here: >> "manifest definition in the ARM headers" > > I think he meant to have either a define in the header mentioning the > absence/presence of M2P.
Yes, at least in a way. > But my preference would be using the Kconfig here. Depends on the symbol used: If such a symbol solely _indicates_ the presence, Kconfig would be better indeed. If, however, the symbol is e.g. a macro resolving to a per-arch implementation, with common code providing a default definition when the arch doesn't provide any, then the non-Kconfig variant may be preferable. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
