Re: [PATCH 08/11] x86: document X86_INTEL_MID as 64-bit-only

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 09:38:05PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2024, at 19:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 12:31 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:

...

> > It's all other way around (from SW point of view). For unknown reasons
> > Intel decided to release only 32-bit SW and it became the only thing
> > that was heavily tested (despite misunderstanding by some developers
> > that pointed finger to the HW without researching the issue that
> > appears to be purely software in a few cases) _that_ time.  Starting
> > ca. 2017 I enabled 64-bit for Merrifield and from then it's being used
> > by both 32- and 64-bit builds.
> >
> > I'm totally fine to drop 32-bit defaults for Merrifield/Moorefield,
> > but let's hear Ferry who might/may still have a use case for that.
> 
> Ok. I tried to find the oldest Android image and saw it used a 64-bit
> kernel, but that must have been after your work then.

I stand up corrected, what I said is related to Merrifield, Moorefield
may have 64-bit users on the phones from day 1, though.

...

> Changed now to
> 
>           The only supported devices are the 22nm Merrified (Z34xx) and
>           Moorefield (Z35xx) SoC used in the Intel Edison board and
>           a small number of Android devices such as the Asus Zenfone 2,
>           Asus FonePad 8 and Dell Venue 7.

LGTM, thanks!

...

> >> -         Intel MID platforms are based on an Intel processor and chipset which
> >> -         consume less power than most of the x86 derivatives.
> >
> > Why remove this? AFAIK it states the truth.
> 
> It seemed irrelevant for users that configure the kernel. I've
> put it back now.

It might be, but it was already there. Thanks for leaving it untouched.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko