From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5ED5C433EF for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 17:53:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B874860EBD for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 17:53:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241590AbhJPRyr (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Oct 2021 13:54:47 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:43906 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230071AbhJPRyk (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Oct 2021 13:54:40 -0400 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300ec2f1ceb006062651ae72baf22.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f1c:eb00:6062:651a:e72b:af22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 912441EC0390; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 19:52:30 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1634406750; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=Ted60gA90RO8nogAFVTIhwaV5qp7YGAkBiqZixtBxb0=; b=b4VqB0B09wJUSNd+eREO0vlRLthbd8ZkAyYc8VO5tqnlsL1fmtm+NSF3gz1SMtsXXdGmsS FmrQEhJmDuh3+M6VCME/8LCVb1YuC7Swp2iZ/GyuMwSMRFpRH40Dv3gry7HLcy3WDfqiXu 7aRZP1qPqtcUdBRqCfVVt7JRYjPzmJc= Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 19:52:29 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Marcos Del Sol Vives Cc: x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add support DM&P devices Message-ID: References: <20211008162246.1638801-1-marcos@orca.pet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 06:29:12PM +0000, Marcos Del Sol Vives wrote: > Should I change it then? Yes please. > Should I also change the other two, possibly in a different patch? So I looked at 8d02c2110b3f ("x86: configuration options to compile out x86 CPU support code") which added some of those !64_BIT deps. And when you look at config X86_32 def_bool !64BIT and having those items either depend on "!64BIT" or on "X86_32" should be equivalent. Former is just weird to have in other Kconfig items except X86_32. So yes, please, in a separate patch. > I used that text because it's what every other x86 processor flag is > also using, even those that also do not do any special initialization. > > For example, the CPU_SUP_UMC_32 flag also has the same warning, yet > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/umc.c reads "UMC chips appear to be only either 386 > or 486, so no special init takes place". I thus assumed this was > standard text, in case at some point an special init is required. Yah, sounds like they've all been copy-pasted from some item which really needs special init. > Do you think it should be then reworded, or should I keep it to mantain > consistency with other existing flag descriptions? Yeah, please write the correct statement in there and do not take the other entries too seriosly - looks like semi-automatic copy-paste took place. > Greetings and thanks for your time, Ditto and you're welcome! :-) -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette