Re: [PATCH V2 5/6] x86: add CONFIG_ARM_AMBA, selected by STA2X11

From: Mark Brown
Date: Tue Jul 03 2012 - 07:05:30 EST

On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 12:41:59PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/02/2012 11:33 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> >> Last I saw I saw a patch to that effect, asked what the benefit
> >> was, and got no answer.

> > Are you positive about that? I don't recall you replying any of
> > the times I sent out the patch and my mail archive isn't
> > contradicting me either.

> I said last time I saw a patch to that effect; it might not have been
> from you. I might not have seen yours for whatever reason (including
> losing it on my end.)

I'm kind of surprised anyone else has been sending stuff (unless mine
got resent by someone else, I did include it in some of my serises for
the clock API); I know I've posted mine several times now. In any case,
I hope the mail you're replying to answers your question about why it's

In general I'd probably go further and say that (at least when a generic
implementation is available) there should be a very good reason for not
enabling an API on an architecture rather than the other way around.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature