Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <76a05abd818c89032161585ba130511a5bd673f0.1519799691.git.jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
References: <cover.1519799691.git.jan.kiszka@siemens.com> <76a05abd818c89032161585ba130511a5bd673f0.1519799691.git.jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:45:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vf35N1Q0aVjKNwz5UMAVKR-q8PypoDhgr8bCbbiqVeSqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] x86: Consolidate PCI_MMCONFIG configs
To:     Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        jailhouse-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>
> Not sure if those two worked by design or just by chance so far. In any
> case, it's at least cleaner and clearer to express this in a single
> config statement.

I would add a reference to the commit which brought that in the first place.

>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/Kconfig | 9 +++------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index eb7f43f23521..63e85e7da12e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -2641,8 +2641,9 @@ config PCI_DIRECT
>         depends on PCI && (X86_64 || (PCI_GODIRECT || PCI_GOANY || PCI_GOOLPC || PCI_GOMMCONFIG))
>
>  config PCI_MMCONFIG
> -       def_bool y
> -       depends on X86_32 && PCI && (ACPI || SFI) && (PCI_GOMMCONFIG || PCI_GOANY)
> +       bool "Support mmconfig PCI config space access" if X86_64
> +       default y
> +       depends on PCI && (ACPI || SFI) && (PCI_GOMMCONFIG || PCI_GOANY || X86_64)

Looking to the above context I would rather put it like

depends on PCI && (ACPI || SFI) && (X86_64 || (PCI_GOANY || PCI_GOMMCONFIG))

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko