Re: [patch] i386 "General Options" - begone [take 2]

[Dave Jones <davej@suse.de>]

<trivial patchbot removed from Cc:>

On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:58:35PM -0700, Grover, Andrew wrote:

 > So, let's assume in the very near future it becomes possible to compile a
 > kernel without MPS or $PIR support. Where should those config options go?

Why do they need to be options ? They should be implied if CONFIG_ACPI=n
Otherwise we could build a kernel without any PCI IRQ routing, MPS
discovery etc.. I can't see the benefit of making this stuff compile
time optional other than to save a few bytes (and there are much better
places to start attacking to save space than this).

 > These, in addition to pnpbios, are also unneeded with ACPI.

As long as the target box has working ACPI tables and we don't have
to fall back to legacy tables.
 
 > That is why I
 > was advocating the more general "Platform interface options" menu, so we
 > could have *one* place to config these and ACPI in or out, instead of having
 > the many different platform interface options in different logical areas.

Can you confirm that you're not advocating a "ACPI or Legacy" approach ?
I think you're aware of the dragons that lie that way, but I want to be
sure my suspicions are unfounded.

    Dave.

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs