On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:52:29 +0800 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > @@ -606,7 +607,9 @@ static void __init __pci_mmcfg_init(int early) > > } > > > > if (!known_bridge) > > - acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_MCFG, pci_parse_mcfg); > > + if (acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_MCFG, > > pci_parse_mcfg)) > > + sfi_acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_MCFG, NULL, > > NULL, 0, > > + pci_parse_mcfg); > > Please introduce one common/generic helper: > > x86_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_MCFG, pci_parse_mcfg); > > and do the fallback in that helper. We generally want to try ACPI > first, SFI second. That helper makes it easier to add such fallback > in other places as well, and will de-uglify the above code as well. > Should we have a new acpi_sfi.c or .h to contain all these helper functions? I think it is not appropriate to put it to either ACPI or SFI code. Also, ACPI and SFI code under arch/x86/kernel have lots of similar code in cpu/io-apic parsing, we thought about extracting these sharable codes out and move them to apic.c/io_apic.c, but don't know if this will uglify current apic/ioapic code? how do you think about it? Thanks, Feng > Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
