From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 13:28:38 +0200 From: Jean Delvare Message-ID: <20120909132838.51b6c434@endymion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <201209091249.04279.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> References: <201209022245.20413.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <201209090308.08766.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <201209091249.04279.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Emulate I2C subsystem/slaves To: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?B?SPx3ZQ==?= Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Richard Weinberger , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-ID: Hi all, Thanks for the info. I thought UML was no longer used with all the virtualization solutions available, but apparently I was wrong. On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 12:49:03 +0200, Peter H=FCwe wrote: > > That's because they rely on the HAS_IOMEM dependency for the whole > > subsystem. In fact, I'm surprised you didn't have to add HAS_IOMEM > > dependencies to more drivers. > I changed only the ones which are available in UML. > I now rewrote the patch to remove the global dependency and move it to al= l the=20 > drivers that really rely on HAS_IOMEM - see below. My bet is that all I2C bus drivers do use I/O or memory mapped operations directly or indirectly, except i2c-stub. So it would probably make more sense, and be a less intrusive change, to move the HAS_IOMEM dependency to drivers/i2c/busses, and move (logically or for real) i2c-stub out of it. Or are there really other I2C bus drivers which make sense to enable under UML? Are there other subsystems where the HAS_IOMEM dependency is at the individual driver level? --=20 Jean Delvare