On 08/12/17 12:26, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 08/12/17 08:05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> acpi_physical_address acpi_arch_get_root_pointer(void)
>>> {
>>> return boot_params.hdr.acpi_rsdp_addr;
>>> }
>>>
>>> 4)
>>>
>>> Add this to arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h:
>>>
>>> extern acpi_physical_address acpi_arch_get_root_pointer(void);
>>
>> Uuh, this leads to problems for files including <asm/acpi.h> directly:
>> acpi_physical_address won't be defined, and including <acpi/actypes.h>
>> from arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h will lead to:
>>
>> #error unknown ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH
>>
>> This can only be avoided by including <linux/acpi.h> from <asm/acpi.h>
>> which seems to be the wrong layering.
>>
>> So I could:
>>
>> a) modify the sources including <asm/acpi.h> to use <linux/acpi.h>
>> instead
>> b) don't use acpi_physical_address but either u64 or unsigned long.
>> c) ?
>>
>> What would be your preference?
>
> Would it help if you put the prototype into linux/acpi.h perhaps? It's a generic
> facility in principle, even if only used by x86 at the moment.
Yes, that seems to work.
Thanks,
Juergen
--
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
