From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51642) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ggp6e-0008My-7p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 05:59:36 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ggp6d-0006pm-Ii for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 05:59:36 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:35293) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ggp6d-0006ak-A1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 05:59:35 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 18:55:54 +0800 From: Yang Zhong Message-ID: <20190108105554.GI27840@yangzhon-Virtual> References: <20181227063419.12981-1-yang.zhong@intel.com> <20181227063419.12981-24-yang.zhong@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 23/25] x86_64-softmmu.mak: remove i386-softmmu.mak include List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, peter.maydell@linaro.org, sameo@linux.intel.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, ehabkost@redhat.com, yang.zhong@intel.com On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 08:58:09PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 2018-12-27 07:34, Yang Zhong wrote: > > Only keep same boards definitions as i386-softmmu.mak in > > x86_64-softmmu.mak. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yang Zhong > > --- > > default-configs/x86_64-softmmu.mak | 6 +++++- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/default-configs/x86_64-softmmu.mak b/default-configs/x86_64-softmmu.mak > > index 64b2ee2960..0c69c2930c 100644 > > --- a/default-configs/x86_64-softmmu.mak > > +++ b/default-configs/x86_64-softmmu.mak > > @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ > > # Default configuration for x86_64-softmmu > > > > -include i386-softmmu.mak > > +# Boards: > > +# > > +CONFIG_ISAPC=y > > +CONFIG_I440FX=y > > +CONFIG_Q35=y > > Not sure whether this patch is really necessary since the two configs > are currently really the same. Anyway, in case you want to keep the patch: > Thanks for comments, yes, it seems this patch is not useful, i will remove this patch in next version. Regards, Yang > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth