* Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Although hardware_subarch has been in place since the x86 boot
> protocol 2.07 it hasn't been used much. Enumerate current possible
> values to avoid misuses and help with semantics later at boot
> time should this be used further.
>
> These enums should only ever be used by architecture x86 code,
> and all that code should be well contained and compartamentalized,
> clarify that as well.
>
> v2: updates documentation further -- be a bit more pedantic about
> annotating care and use of these guys.
> v3: Use s/SOC/SoC and also anntoate that both domU and dom0 are
> both currently supported through the PV boot path.
>
> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h
> index 329254373479..bf9fea2f4591 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h
> @@ -157,7 +157,42 @@ struct boot_params {
> __u8 _pad9[276]; /* 0xeec */
> } __attribute__((packed));
>
> -enum {
> +/**
> + * enum x86_hardware_subarch - x86 hardware subarchitecture
Could you add some prominent warning here, like:
> + * WARNING: the 'x86 subarch flag' is only used for legacy hacks, for platform
> + * features that are not easily enumerated or discoverable. You should
> + * not ever use this for new features.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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
