From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754721AbaCCQ3E (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:29:04 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:25372 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753620AbaCCQ3D (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:29:03 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,578,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="465581165" Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:25:32 -0800 From: "David E. Box" To: "Li, Aubrey" Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] x86: IOSF: Change IOSF_MBI Kconfig to default y Message-ID: <20140303162532.GA15959@linux.intel.com> References: <1393641652-7222-1-git-send-email-david.e.box@linux.intel.com> <1393641652-7222-3-git-send-email-david.e.box@linux.intel.com> <53142A31.2010209@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53142A31.2010209@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:07:29PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: > On 2014/3/1 10:40, David E. Box wrote: > > From: "David E. Box" > > > > Make the IOSF Mailbox driver built in as it provides core functionality needed > > for new Intel SOC platforms to access the device registers on the SOC. > > > > Signed-off-by: David E. Box > > --- > > arch/x86/Kconfig | 7 ++----- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > index d3b1f8b..e34b252 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > @@ -2385,12 +2385,9 @@ config X86_DMA_REMAP > > depends on STA2X11 > > > > config IOSF_MBI > > - bool > > + bool "Intel IOSF Mailbox Driver support" > > One concern here is, IOSF is not architectural for all of X86, can we > change this as "Intel Atom IOSF Mailbox Driver support"? Or if you can > confirm we'll use IOSF in the future onchip product, can we change this > as "Intel SOC IOSF Mailbox Driver support"? > Ok. The latter would be more appropriate. david box