On 03.04.2025 11:17, Orzel, Michal wrote:
> On 03/04/2025 10:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.04.2025 10:44, Orzel, Michal wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2025 10:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 03.04.2025 10:19, Michal Orzel wrote:
>>>>> Just like for RISCV and PPC, the earlier we enable the CI build the
>>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> What about Arm32?
>>> The series to enable compilation of Arm32 with MPU is still under review on
>>> the ML.
>>
>> Oh. Is MPU in Kconfig then missing a dependency on 64BIT?
> Well, yes you're right although when I think about it, it's been like that
> (for
> both 64 and 32) since the introduction of CONFIG_MPU by commit (in October
> last
> year):
> 0388a5979b21 ("xen/arm: mpu: Introduce choice between MMU and MPU")
>
> If you're saying that all the Kconfig combinations + targets like allyes/allno
> need to build successfully also for new ports (MPU on Arm is kind of like a
> new
> port), then I agree (I did not think about it and clearly others too seeing
> the
> MPU patch above) although I'd prefer to avoid sending a patch adding
> dependency
> just to be removed in 1-2 weeks. But I can do whatever you think needs to be
> done.
I'm far from insisting on a change here; you're a maintainer of that code while
I am not. Yet I indeed think Kconfig needs to have the dependencies right, or
else randconfig CI jobs may randomly fail.
Jan
