From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Kenneth W" Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:17:47 +0000 Subject: RE: [2.6 patch] let IA64_GENERIC select more stuff Message-Id: <200602080217.k182Hlg23826@unix-os.sc.intel.com> List-Id: In-Reply-To: <20060208020832.GK3524@stusta.de> References: <20060207231713.GG3524@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20060207231713.GG3524@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: 'Adrian Bunk' Cc: Keith Owens , "Luck, Tony" , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk wrote on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 6:09 PM > > CONFIG_IA64_GENERIC is a platform type choice, you can have platform > > type of DIG, HPZX1, SGI SN2, or all of the above. DIG platform depends > > on ACPI, thus need ACPI on. SGI altix is a numa box, thus, need NUMA > > on. NEC, Fujitsu build numa machines with ACPI SRAT table, thus, need > > ACPI_NUMA on. When you build a kernel to boot on all platforms, you > > have no choice but to turn on all of the above. Processor type and SMP > > is different from platform type. It does not have any dependency on > > platform type. They are orthogonal choice. > > This is interesting, considering that e.g. IA64_SGI_SN2=y, NUMA=n or > IA64_DIG=y, ACPI=n are currently allowed configurations. Right, that is what Matthew Wilcox said in earlier thread. > > > Keith said IA64_GENERIC should select all the options required in > > > order to run on all the IA64 platforms out there. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > This is what my patch does. > > > > You patch does more than what you described and is wrong. Selecting > > platform type should not be tied into selecting SMP nor should it tied > > This was what Keith wanted. > > It seems everyone thinks I am wrong, but when I'm implementing what one > person suggests, other people say that what I am doing is wrong. You have to digest what people say and *understand* why they said what they say. Checking earlier thread, Keith did not say "select CONFIG_ITANIUM for generic ia64 platforms". > > Theoretically and maybe academically interesting, I should be able to > > build a kernel that boots on all UP platforms, with your patch, that > > is not possible. > > Theoretically and maybe academically interesting, I should be able to > build a kernel that boots on all non-NUMA platforms, currently, that is > not possible. This is going too far and very childish in my opinion. I'm going to shut up. - Ken