[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1465831152.30123.21.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:19:12 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Tan Jui Nee <jui.nee.tan@...el.com>,
heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
ptyser@...-inc.com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jonathan.yong@...el.com, ong.hock.yu@...el.com,
weifeng.voon@...el.com, wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/platform/p2sb: New Primary to Sideband
bridge support driver for Intel SOC's
On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 17:25 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:54:31PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Would work to me, though still the same question: is it possible to
> > avoid building it on even most of Intel platforms, since there, I
> > assume, will be not many users of the module?
>
> Well, even if you make it configurable via Kconfig, I guess distros
> will
> have to enable it in order to support as wide range of CPUs as
> possible
> in a single binary.
Good point.
Then perhaps the following we can do:
- add a static boolean flag
- add __init function where we check either PCI root bridge ID or CPU
ID (I don't know which one is better, I suppose second one, though it
will require an update of arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h)
- add a check into the function.
What do you think?
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists