Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with Linus' tree

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 12:54:20PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 02.10.12 at 13:45, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> >> > Considering that dbgp doesn't seem to be very useful without PCI at the
> >> > moment, could we just turn it into:
> >> > 
> >> > dom0-$(CONFIG_PCI) += dbgp.o
> >> > 
> >> > ?
> >> 
> >> Better not - the code is specifically not PCI-only. And I can't see
> >> how it would be harmful to be compiled on e.g. ARM (so the
> >> merge perhaps really should use XEN_DOM0 alone, without
> >> X86. If anything (and that may indeed be a minor oversight of
> >> the original patch) one might want it to depend on USB_SUPPORT,
> >> as without that no in-tree debug port capable driver would be
> >> able to load (and hence interfere with Xen's use of the debug
> >> port). However, as long as it builds fine with USB_SUPPORT
> >> undefined (which I believe it does), having it in the shape it
> >> is allows for out-of-tree drivers as well (as long as they make
> >> use of the designated interface).
> > 
> > OK for PCI.
> > Regarding USB_SUPPORT, considering that gbgp.c calls hcd_to_bus, I think
> > it would make sense to make it depend on it.
> 
> As said - I'd prefer to do that only if indeed needed to get things
> to build without that option. Since include/usb/* doesn't reference
> CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT, I'm in favor of supporting at least those
> eventual out-of-tree drivers that do use the pre-existing data
> structures (and others shouldn't be calling pre-existing APIs
> anyway). But I wouldn't NAK a patch doing what you suggest
> either.

Could it depend on EARLY_PRINTK_DBGP ?

> 
> Jan