Re: [PATCH v4 04/14] x86/rtc: replace paravirt rtc check with platform legacy quirk

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 08:37:44AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/08/2016 03:59 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >On 08/04/16 09:36, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>On 08/04/16 08:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>>>On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>Okay. Another idea (not sure whether this is really a good one):
> >>>>
> >>>>Add X86_SUBARCH_XEN_DOM0. As hardware_subarch is 32 bits wide I don't
> >>>>think the number of subarchs is a scarce resource. :-)
> >>This would mean bumping the x86 boot protocol, we shouldn't take that
> >>lightly, but given that in this case the new subarch would really only
> >>be set by the kernel (or future loaders for perhaps HVMLite) I'd think
> >>this is not such an intrusive alternative.
> >I think adding an own subarch for dom0 isn't that bad. It really is
> >different from domU as dom0 has per default access to the real hardware
> >(or at least to most of it).
> 
> Can we do this (overwrite quirks) in x86_init_ops.arch_setup? I'd
> really like to avoid adding a what essentially is a sub-subarch.

I'm going with this. Will respin.

  Luis
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux