Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VdUO2Rq7geYD9xxY3nnzGAhO46+w+rQx44=MgJ6obRcEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180125143639.9969-1-jgross@suse.com> <20180125143639.9969-2-jgross@suse.com>
 <CAHp75VdgdQXH-d9+Fo1DwGdfV1pB0jADMmwAK1BU7oN6dgQs8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <a33e605a-73d7-83b7-4472-14f66b6738be@suse.com> <CAHp75VdUO2Rq7geYD9xxY3nnzGAhO46+w+rQx44=MgJ6obRcEA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:02:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gr7Jd-1dOD_DTRQDCX7ON68O1KJ9ioAJAnwBYm2cEdZg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/acpi: add retrieval function for rsdp address
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 26/01/18 19:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> Add a function to get the address of the RSDP table. Per default use a
>>>> __weak annotated function being a nop.
>>>
>>> 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?