Unclear that the power management partitioning between xen hypervisor and dom0 is fully baked. Uncear (to me) what xen is doing internally with these power management objects, and how that differs from what Linux would do. While patches to the Linux kernel may be a good RFE, prototype, or base for discussion, the unknowns above need to be addressed to before it makes much sense to spent a large amount of time on the source. some things did jump out of the patch, however... I do not recommend believing _PSD. Our experience is that 50% of the time it is crap. Why does xen_processor_px exists when it is the same as acpi_processor_px? ditto for acpi_processor_cx and xen_processor_cx Lose the ifdefs. Lose the tests for xen on the inline code when they can be inside the called routines. This doesn't look like an abstraction layer, it looks more like a simple conduit. The thing at the other end (xen) will need to know just as much about these data structures as the thing that sent them (linux) the patch doesn't apply to the upstream kernel -- even the ACPI specific parts. checkpatch.pl: total: 168 errors, 42 warnings, 643 lines checked Don't send me another patch that can't pass checkpatch.pl, even if just an RFC. thanks, Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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
