[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141015150420.GE11511@saruman>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:04:20 -0500
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
<aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: x86: Make Atom PMC driver configurable.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:59:24AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 09:52:45AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:46:03AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > The Atom PMC driver is always built-in, regardless of whether
> > > the kernel being built is going to be run on an Atom (or even Intel) CPU.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > index f2327e88e07c..04280177c1e2 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > @@ -2485,7 +2485,7 @@ config X86_DMA_REMAP
> > > depends on STA2X11
> > >
> > > config PMC_ATOM
> > > - def_bool y
> > > + tristate "Intel Atom SOC power management controller driver"
> >
> > looks like you should still have this as default y just to make sure you
> > a simple defconfig still enables this as it did before.
>
> I could, but why should this be default y ? There's no real
> justification to inflict this on everyone, given atom is at best
> a niche area of x86.
well, because it already was a bool ? There might be distros out there
who would mysteriously loose PMC support after upgrade the kernel
without realizing that PMC_ATOM isn't a default y anymore.
Frankly though, no strong feelings. I won't be the one having to tell
users to change their .config ;-)
--
balbi
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists