[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120226173458.GB18098@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:34:58 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@...el.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
"keir.xen@...il.com" <keir.xen@...il.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] RFC: Prepare PAD for native and xen platform
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 08:25:41AM +0000, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> > Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@...el.com> 02/23/12 2:29 PM >>>
> >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> >>> @@ -213,10 +213,11 @@ config ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU
> >>> default y
> >> >
> >>> config ACPI_PROCESSOR_AGGREGATOR
> >>> - tristate "Processor Aggregator"
> >>> + bool "Processor Aggregator"
> >>
> >> There must be ways to address whatever strange problem you see
> >> without making this piece of code non-modular.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, another approach is x86_init approach, defining acpi_pad_ops at
> > x86_init.c and overwritten when xen_start_kernel. This patch is just
> > a RFC patch, to evaluate which approch is more reasonable :-)
> >
>
> Have a more think about it, x86_init approach still need to disable acpi_pad module.
> Seems we have to set acpi_pad as bool, as long as it need to hook to native acpi_pad fucs/variables.
What about the other approach I suggested where there are some function
overrides in osl.c? Something similar to https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/17/401,
specifically https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/17/403 - that way you are not turning
the modules into being built in, but intead have the function table already in
the kernel (as some form of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL or a registration function).
Instead of just one function being over-ridden it could have some more. However
I am not sure if the osl.c is the place for this either. Perhaps Len might
have some better ideas?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists