From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47861) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gt9El-0006cy-LS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:54:56 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gt9Ej-0003jE-2g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:54:55 -0500 References: <1548956828-10210-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <20190131185621.28815291.cohuck@redhat.com> <538ee62b-293d-f053-4bd2-76bf166388e1@redhat.com> <20190201092356.295925c2.cohuck@redhat.com> <20190211114859.76109aa3.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <746bc346-26ce-e096-d8a4-fe78bf7912c1@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:54:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190211114859.76109aa3.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw/s390x: Fix the function arguments in the pci stub file List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Collin Walling , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 2019-02-11 11:48, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 09:23:56 +0100 > Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:46:40 +0100 >> Thomas Huth wrote: > >>> So I see two options now: >>> >>> 1) Finally really make the device optional, at least for new machine >>> types, so we can really disable CONFIG_PCI and get a working executable. >>> >>> 2) Scratch the idea completely to make this optional, always link the >>> s390-pci-bus.o and s390-pci-inst.o files unconditionally, and remove the >>> s390-pci-stub.c file. >>> >>> I assume options 2 is preferred, since we likely rather want to move >>> into the PCI direction in the long run, instead of ignoring it... >> >> I think both options are viable, but option 1 is of course more work. >> The win there is that we could disable an entire subsystem. >> >> I guess that the basic questions are: How important is it that >> subsystems can be compiled out, and do we see a use case for a pci-less >> s390 machine in the future? We really don't want to spend much time on >> something of dubious use... > > Any thoughts on this? > > I'm currently tending towards option 2 (and can cook up a patch for > that). Unless someone is already working on option 1 :) Since nobody currently has a need to completely disable PCI, I think we should go with option 2. Thomas