Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 May 2009 01:21:49 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rtc: add x86 support for rtc-efi |
| |
* H. Peter Anvin <h.peter.anvin@intel.com> wrote:
> Huang, Ying wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 02:21 +0800, Anvin, H Peter wrote: >>> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>> * Brian Maly <bmaly@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Hm, it would be nice to first unify the relevant bits of >>>>>> arch/x86/kernel/time_{32|64}.c into arch/x86/kernel/time.c, and >>>>>> then we can apply such patches without duplicative effects. >>>>> Ingo, >>>>> >>>>> Are you OK with consolidating this into arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c as >>>>> Huang Ying had suggested? This seems like the most logical place >>>>> for the rtc-efi init to happen, but your suggestion to >>>>> consolidate this into arch/x86/kernel.time.c may have advantages >>>>> that I am not aware of. Anyway, I would appreciate any >>>>> insight/opinions on this if you have any. Thanks. >>>> Yes, that indeed sounds like an even better place for it. >>>> >>> Furthermore, the EFI RTC code probably should be in its own file. >>> >>> In fact, arch/x86/kernel really could use more subdirectories; at >>> least the EFI and UV-specific code should be be moved out. >> >> Or, do you think it is appropriate to re-organize EFI related code into >> a sub-architecture? >> > > No, we're been trying to get rid of subarchitectures in the x86 > kernel. The reason is that the notion of subarchitectures matches > reality in x86-land poorly. Most variants of x86 share > considerable code: UV has EFI, PC has EFI or BIOS, Voyager has > BIOS and a standard RTC, and so on.
Yeah - we essentially got rid of the ex subarchitecture code in 2.6.30. We still have config options that turn on various sorts of behavior - but most of them are runtime. We definitely dont want to reintroduce anything subarchitecture-ish.
Ingo
| |