On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw(a)rjwysocki.net> wrote:
On Friday, May 01, 2015 09:23:38 AM Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw(a)rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 30, 2015 05:39:06 PM Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw(a)rjwysocki.net>
> > If ND_E820 and ND_ACPI aren't mutually exclusive, I
still don't see a good
> > enough reason for asking users about ND_ACPI. Why would I ever say
> > here if I said "Yes" or "Module" to ND_DEVICES?
> I agree that if the user selects ND_DEVICES then ND_ACPI should
> probably default on, but otherwise turning it off is a useful option.
> If you know your system is pre-ACPI-6 then why bother including
If you're a distro, you don't care. You have to support it regardless.
You might care if you're an end user building a kernel for yourself and just
for this particular specific machine. Honestly, how many *server* users do
And fewer user-selectable options means fewer combination of options to test
Also unrelated, but applies to this patch.
Since your new driver will handle device ID ACPI0012 which is defined by the
spec proper, it should go into drivers/acpi/, because there's where such things
go as a rule.
Ok, I think the move to drivers/acpi/ will kill two birds with one
stone as selecting ACPI_NFIT from there will select the libnd support