Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 05:49:58AM +0000, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>>>>> +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?
>>
>> Ideally ACPI PAD is not bound to some arch, so IMO it could be used
>> at least on IA64 (through currently no real PAD on IA64 platform as
>> far as I know). However, in native acpi_pad implementation, it
>> indeed depends on X86 for reason like mwait.
>> So for xen acpi_pad, I think it's OK to choose x86, defining an
>> acpi_pad_ops at x86_init.c which would be overwritten when xen init.
>
> OK, or in osl.c. We need Len to chime in here as I can see this
> expanding in the future.
>>
>> Another choice is to define config ACPI_PROCESSOR_AGGREGATOR as
>> 'bool', which would disable native acpi_pad module.
>
> Ewww. No.
I'm OK with x86_init approach, but advantage of 'config ACPI_PROCESSOR_AGGREGATOR as bool' would get rid of X86/IA64/... arch issue for xen (at least from coding view), through it need disable native acpi_pad module (IMO acpi_pad module has not strong reason to must be so).
Have a re-consider of this approach? :-)
Thanks,
Jinsong
>>
>> Your opinion?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jinsong
>>
>>>
>>> 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
