<trivial patchbot removed from Cc:>
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:58:35PM -0700, Grover, Andrew wrote:
> So, let's assume in the very near future it becomes possible to compile a
> kernel without MPS or $PIR support. Where should those config options go?
Why do they need to be options ? They should be implied if CONFIG_ACPI=n
Otherwise we could build a kernel without any PCI IRQ routing, MPS
discovery etc.. I can't see the benefit of making this stuff compile
time optional other than to save a few bytes (and there are much better
places to start attacking to save space than this).
> These, in addition to pnpbios, are also unneeded with ACPI.
As long as the target box has working ACPI tables and we don't have
to fall back to legacy tables.
> That is why I
> was advocating the more general "Platform interface options" menu, so we
> could have *one* place to config these and ACPI in or out, instead of having
> the many different platform interface options in different logical areas.
Can you confirm that you're not advocating a "ACPI or Legacy" approach ?
I think you're aware of the dragons that lie that way, but I want to be
sure my suspicions are unfounded.
Dave.
-- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 22:00:22 EST