>>> On 17.03.16 at 12:03, <zhaoshengl...@huawei.com> wrote: > On 2016/3/17 18:52, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 17.03.16 at 10:41, <zhaoshengl...@huawei.com> wrote: >>> > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/config.h >>> > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/config.h >>> > @@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ >>> > >>> > #define CONFIG_ARM_L1_CACHE_SHIFT 7 /* XXX */ >>> > >>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI >>> > +#define CONFIG_ACPI_BOOT 1 >>> > +#endif >> Do we think that ACPI without ACPI_BOOT is useful for anything? >> If not, I think we should just get rid of the latter in common code >> (x86 could be cleaned up separately), and hence ARM wouldn't >> have a need for this ugliness. If however we do, then this should >> be switched to Kconfig (at once on x86 then). > I think we could replace CONFIG_ACPI_BOOT with CONFIG_ACPI. Maybe we > could clean up them on top this of patch.
Cleaning up the sole common code use should be done as a prereq, or even inside this patch. Doing such cleanup on top is a bad idea: We should aim at not introducing any further CONFIG_* #define-s in headers, now that we have the Kconfig machinery in place. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
