> >>> +struct pv_pad_ops {
> >>> + int (*acpi_pad_init)(void);
> >>> + void (*acpi_pad_exit)(void);
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >
> > Looking at this a bit closer I am not sure why you choose the paravirt
> > interface for this? There is another one - the x86 that could have
> > been
> > choosen. Or introduce a new one that is specific to ACPI.
> >
> > I am curious - what was the reason for using the paravirt interface?
> > I understand it does get the job done, but it seems a bit overkill
> > when something simple could have been used?
> >
>
> It uses paravirt interface to avoid some code like 'xen_...' in native code path (acpi_pad.c).
> I'm not quite sure what does 'x86' here mean? Adding 2 fields (acpi_pad_init/exit) in arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c --> xen_cpu_ops? seems it's much simpler.
arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h
But before you go that way let me ask you another question - can ACPI PAD
be used on ARM or IA64? If so, wouldn't this fail compilation as this pvops
structure is not defined on IA64?
The other thing I am not comfortable about is that the pvops structure
are used for low-level code. Not for higher up, like ACPI. For that another
structure seems more prudent. Perhaps something like the x86 one, but specific
to ACPI?
--
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
