From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52334) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ggp99-00011G-4T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 06:02:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ggp93-0003fy-D8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 06:02:11 -0500 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:28119) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ggp93-0003YZ-4y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 06:02:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 18:58:27 +0800 From: Yang Zhong Message-ID: <20190108105827.GJ27840@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: Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, sameo@linux.intel.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, ehabkost@redhat.com, Thomas Huth , yang.zhong@intel.com On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 03:32:13PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 06:35, 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 > > Could you explain the rationale for doing this? Now > any new i386 board has to be added in two places, > doesn't it? > > thanks > -- PMM Thanks Peter, you are right, i will remove this patch in next version, thanks! Regards, Yang