From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37466) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gonlV-0008T6-PQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 06:10:46 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gonlT-0001J1-RY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 06:10:45 -0500 References: <3f01a301-d639-dbe7-f522-42a50e2d443e@redhat.com> <1548841387-7670-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <1548841387-7670-3-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <1dfe0b1f-a59a-db8a-ef1e-81cb24166c24@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:10:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 2/5] ppc: Express dependencies of the 'prep' and '40p' machines with kconfig List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, yang.zhong@intel.com Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Herv=c3=a9_Poussineau?= , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org On 30/01/19 12:02, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 2019-01-30 11:25, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 2019-01-30 11:17, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 30/01/19 10:43, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> + select LSI_SCSI_PCI >>> >>> Should NE2000_ISA and LSI_SCSI_PCI be handled the same? Either rely on >>> "default y" for both, or select both (I think I prefer the former). >> >> Yes. IMHO we should use "select XXX" if the machine has a hard >> requirement for a device, and "default y" if it can also somehow work >> without the device. In this case, I did not look carefully enough, since >> it is apparently possible to use the 40p machine also without the LSI >> controller when you specify "-nodefaults". So I'll remove this in v2 and >> rely on the "default y" instead. > > Scratch that. The "select LSI_SCSI_PCI" is currently a hard requirement > here, otherwise I get a linker error like this: > > hw/ppc/prep.c:705: undefined reference to `lsi53c8xx_handle_legacy_cmdline' > > So I think we should keep this patch in its current shape. Of course > we still can clean that up later, but this should not be part of the > initial Kconfig patch series (which is already big enough). Sounds good! Paolo