lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC patch 00/32] x86: Refactor the setup code to provide a base for embedded platforms

    * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

    [...]
    > The following patch series refactors the setup related x86_quirks
    > and the setup related paravirt hooks and puts them into an
    > extensible platform_setup infrastructure to provide a proper base
    > for adding the Moorestown modifications. As a side effect it also
    > unifies time_32/64.c and removes some leftovers of the pre
    > arch/x86 era.
    >
    > Note, this is not a replacement for paravirt_ops. It is just
    > replacing the setup related paravirt stuff so it can be reused for
    > other platforms though I have to say that it removes a fair amount
    > of obscurity which was introduced by paravirt & Co.

    > 47 files changed, 622 insertions(+), 808 deletions(-)

    Very nice!

    One small detail, before we spread out these patches. While looking
    at the patches i noticed that at places our new x86 init namespace
    is very long:

    > + platform_setup.timers.setup_percpu_clockev = platform_setup_noop;
    > + platform_cpuhotplug_setup.setup_percpu_clockev = platform_setup_noop;
    > +

    I think we should shorten the name-space a bit - we'll use it in a
    _lot_ of places, so the shorter, the better and the easier to use.

    I'd suggest something like:

    x86_init.timers.init_percpu_clockev = x86_init_noop;
    x86_cpuhotplug_init.init_percpu_clockev = x86_init_noop;

    ( This also has the advantage that 'init' is the general term we use
    for kernel structure initialization - 'setup' is a more
    restrictive term we use related to bootloading, most of the time. )

    An even shorter form would be to use 'x86' as a general template for
    platform details:

    x86.timers.init_percpu_ce = x86_init_noop;
    x86_cpuhotplug.init_percpu_ce = x86_init_noop;

    this is even shorter, plus it allows us to put runtime details into
    this structure as well. Note that the fields themselves
    (init_percpu_clockev) already signal the 'init' property
    sufficiently. Plus 'ce' is an existing, well-known abbreviation for
    clockevents. (but 'clockev' would be good too - i might be pushing
    it)

    What do you think?

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-22 13:01    [W:0.024 / U:99.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site