Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 05:02:59PM +0000, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> 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? :-)
>
> But it is a compile option right? We wantone kernel that can do both
> baremetal and Xen.
Sorry, I didn't speak clear my approach.
The approach can enable kernel run both baremetal and Xen platform, and not bind acpi pad logic to x86.
Send 2 patches as RFC.
Thanks
Jinsong--
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
