> > I wanted to keep Michal's change for the arm64 as it is. And introduce > Kconfig and command line in separate patches. > > But I agree, it does not look clean. > > > I am fine to follow your suggestion ie (Option 1) > > Patch 1 ---> arm64 changes + Kconfig + cmd_line (authored by Michal) > > Patch 2 ---> arm32 changes (which will use the Kconfig and cmd_line > introduced before) > > > Alternatively, I am thinking like this (Option 2) > > Patch 1 --> arm64 changes (authored by Michal) > > Patch 2 --> arm32 changes > > Patch 3 ---> Kconfig + cmd_line (which will touch patch 1 and 2). > > Let me know what you (+ Stefano, Julien, Bertrand) think about the split. > > I don't have a strong preference on how the split should be done.
The maintainers will decide, but I feel that with option 2, there will be, in the tree, a state where the design decision won’t be fulfilled, so with patch 1 and 2 we will have partial emulation unconditionally. Instead with option 1 we will have always a proper state, which will be arm64 conditional partial emulation with patch 1 and arm32 conditional partial emulation with patch 2. Maybe maintainers will decide if that matters or not. Cheers, Luca
