Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754083AbZGJLPZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:15:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751268AbZGJLPN (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:15:13 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:49845 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750981AbZGJLPM (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:15:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:14:57 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Feng Tang Cc: Len Brown , "x86@kernel.org" , "sfi-devel@simplefirmware.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] SFI, PCI: Hook MMCONFIG Message-ID: <20090710111457.GA3760@elte.hu> References: <8e4a93858bce74ed3080dd607aa471023f1a2737.1247025117.git.len.brown@intel.com> <24fe646fcbbd9049850de4ac57cf6a67846b38c4.1247025117.git.len.brown@intel.com> <20090710055229.GD22218@elte.hu> <20090710151753.05848348@feng-desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090710151753.05848348@feng-desktop> 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: 1825 Lines: 50 * Feng Tang wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:52:29 +0800 > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > @@ -606,7 +607,9 @@ static void __init __pci_mmcfg_init(int early) > > > } > > > > > > if (!known_bridge) > > > - acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_MCFG, pci_parse_mcfg); > > > + if (acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_MCFG, > > > pci_parse_mcfg)) > > > + sfi_acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_MCFG, NULL, > > > NULL, 0, > > > + pci_parse_mcfg); > > > > Please introduce one common/generic helper: > > > > x86_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_MCFG, pci_parse_mcfg); > > > > and do the fallback in that helper. We generally want to try > > ACPI first, SFI second. That helper makes it easier to add such > > fallback in other places as well, and will de-uglify the above > > code as well. > > Should we have a new acpi_sfi.c or .h to contain all these helper > functions? I think it is not appropriate to put it to either ACPI > or SFI code. They are of the same family and there's reuse in terms of table parsing code, etc. Do you have some nice name that covers both? I didnt find any good one beyond the x86_table_*() namespace. > Also, ACPI and SFI code under arch/x86/kernel have lots of similar > code in cpu/io-apic parsing, we thought about extracting these > sharable codes out and move them to apic.c/io_apic.c, but don't > know if this will uglify current apic/ioapic code? how do you > think about it? it all depends on the patches ... and the APIC enumeration code definitely needs cleanups so if you can do it that would be welcome. 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/