[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241104142958.GVZyjaZtONnLIJAUo7@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:29:58 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Cc: linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tony.luck@...el.com, x86@...nel.org, avadhut.naik@....com,
john.allen@....com, mario.limonciello@....com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com, richard.gong@....com, jdelvare@...e.com,
linux@...ck-us.net, clemens@...isch.de, hdegoede@...hat.com,
ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
naveenkrishna.chatradhi@....com, carlos.bilbao.osdev@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] x86/amd_nb: Move SMN access code to a new amd_smn
driver
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 05:21:44PM +0000, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index ba5252d8e21c..a03ffa5b6bb1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -3128,6 +3128,9 @@ config AMD_NODE
> def_bool y
> depends on CPU_SUP_AMD && PCI
>
> +config AMD_SMN
> + def_bool y
> + depends on AMD_NODE
Why is this a separate compilation unit and not part of amd_node.c? Especially
if it depends on it.
I don't see the real need for having smaller compilation units. Both the node
and the smn stuff will end up being built-in in 99% of the configs. So why are
we making separate Kconfig items and yadda yadda?
Just do a single amd_node and that's it. We can always split later, if really
needed.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists