Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760467AbZFZO37 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:29:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757821AbZFZO3w (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:29:52 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:50180 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757960AbZFZO3v (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:29:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:29:37 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alan Cox Cc: "Pan, Jacob jun" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "H. Peter Anvin" , Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] x86/moorestown: add moorestown platform flags Message-ID: <20090626142937.GA19477@elte.hu> References: <43F901BD926A4E43B106BF17856F07556412B7E2@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com> <20090626071955.GG14078@elte.hu> <20090626101310.4110a290@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090626093859.GA12571@elte.hu> <20090626111603.758ec7fb@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090626110429.GB12446@elte.hu> <20090626125653.5e30bae4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090626122254.GA9959@elte.hu> <20090626133318.5b8de81b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090626133318.5b8de81b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1603 Lines: 38 * Alan Cox wrote: > > The thing is, you are trying to defend a v1 patch-set here that > > is really indefensible: it's ugly and deficient in numerous > > smaller and larger details. I outlined numerous deficiencies > > already - and i'll review v2 too to see what else is there to > > fix. > > No I'm trying to understand what you actually want the thing to > look like. It's a case by case thing and i pointed out a few specific directions in the review. The IO-APIC changes should probably go on top of Jeremy's IO-APIC driver-ization patches. They dont necessarily need their own IO-APIC driver (if the resulting line count increase is too much), but they should not wreck Jeremy's IO-APIC patches. Bootup quirks that are small modificatons to existing PC initialization sequences should go into x86_quirks. Timer related changes (the APB system timer) are mostly modular already by virtue of half of it being a clocksource and clockevents driver. The remaining bit of system timer handling should be abstracted out as a 'struct x86_system_timer' kind of structure, with ->init, ->timer_irq and ->shutdown functions. [ Although it is beyond me why ABP was done - why wasnt HPET good enough? HPET can do per CPU clockevents too and it's just as off-chip (and hence fundamentally slow) as ABP. ] Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/