[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0g3Ti4W8Z-ePVCO0RFs3qviJxhrh1___i6oiZKRsYzBng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 08:57:49 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/acpi: add retrieval function for rsdp address
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>>>> On 26/01/18 19:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> The problem with weak functions that we can't have more than one
>>>>> implementation per kernel while we would like to built several code
>>>>> paths.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have stumbled on the similar stuff and realize that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, one of the solution is to have an additional struct under
>>>>> x86_init to alternate ACPI related stuff.
>>>>
>>>> I think we can go that route when another user of that interface is
>>>> appearing.
>>>
>>> Why not to establish the struct? At least this route I would like to
>>> go with [1].
>>>
>>> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/17/834
>>
>> Maybe I'm a bit slow today, but care to explain what exactly you mean?
>
> Instead of declaring function as __weak, establish a new struct for
> ACPI related stubs and incorporate it into x86_init.
>
> That is my proposal. I think I would go this way in my case where I
> need to treat differently ACPI HW reduced initialization of legacy
> devices.
IOW you'd like to have a set of ACPI init callbacks that could be
defined by an arch, right?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists