* Feng Tang <feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. They are of the same family and there's reuse in terms of table parsing code, etc. Do you have some nice name that covers both? I didnt find any good one beyond the x86_table_*() namespace. > 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? it all depends on the patches ... and the APIC enumeration code definitely needs cleanups so if you can do it that would be welcome. 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
