[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D9DEDA5.6020706@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:00:21 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl" <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"randy.dunlap@...cle.com" <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
"pazke@...pac.ru" <pazke@...pac.ru>,
"linux-visws-devel@...ts.sf.net" <linux-visws-devel@...ts.sf.net>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: drop anti-dependency on X86_VISWS
On 04/06/2011 11:58 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> I'm not sure why ELAN belongs in the EXTENDED_PLATFORM option space
> rather than in the CPU choice option, since its only impact seems to be
> on -march, MODULE_PROC_FAMILY and some cpufreq drivers which doesn't
> sound like an extended platform to me but does it appear to be
> deliberate (see 9e111f3e167a "x86: move ELAN to the
> NON_STANDARD_PLATFORM section", that was the old name for
> EXTENDED_PLATFORM).
>
Historic... we used to have nonstandard A20M# handling on Elan, until it
was discovered that we could make it work without it.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists