Re: [patch][rfc] xquad_portio cleanup

[Alan Cox]

On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 22:44, Matthew Dobson wrote:
> > STANDALONE seems to be a very namespace-polluting choice of define.
> > MULTIQUAD_STANDALONE, MQ_STANDALONE... anything would be better imo.
> 
> The #define is most definitely *not* NUMA/Multiquad specific.  In this
> particular instance, it is guarding Multiquad specific code...  The 
> STANDALONE option (please clarify if I'm wrong, Alan) is for code that 
> is compiled along with the kernel, with the kernel headers, etc, but is 
> not acually part of the kernel proper.

Indeed

Its set by the boot loader code that wants to also use inb/outb etc but
not get the kernel magic wonders of numa-q and other evil abuses of PC
iomapping