From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: drop anti-dependency on X86_VISWS Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:00:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4D9DEDA5.6020706@zytor.com> References: <1301828839.2837.143.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20110403.172407.91341067.davem@davemloft.net> <1301910955.23887.75.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20110406.144515.235693855.davem@davemloft.net> <1302159483.31620.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1302159483.31620.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: David Miller , "eric.dumazet@gmail.com" , "mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "konrad.wilk@oracle.com" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "randy.dunlap@oracle.com" , "pazke@donpac.ru" , "linux-visws-devel@lists.sf.net" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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.