On 26/02/2021 16:21, Bob Eshleman wrote: >>> On 2/25/21 3:14 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> >>> It sounds like you'd prefer no common to start and none of the >>> arch_* calls it relies on? >> We definitely want "stuff compiled under RISC-V" to be caught in CI, but >> that doesn't mean "wedge all of common in with stubs to begin with". >> >> Honestly - I want to see the build issues/failures in common, to help us >> fix the rough corners on Kconfig system and include hierarchy. >> >> In light of this patch, there are definitely some things which should be >> fixed as prerequisites, rather than forcing yet-more x86-isms into every >> new arch. >> >> ~Andrew >> > Ah I see. There's more that could be Kconfig'd away and if they can't be > Kconfig'd away, their should be some commits to make it so they can be. > > But things like, for example, `arch_domain_create()` would still > be stubbed, because this is and always will be required.
Some bits are very mandatory (at the point you start compiling domain.c), but it absolutely shouldn't be necessary to implement that much in the way of stubs to bootstrap an architecture. ~Andrew
