From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755984AbYHOLwT (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:52:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752877AbYHOLwI (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:52:08 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:43794 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752713AbYHOLwH (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:52:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:51:48 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, yhlu.kernel@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 8/8] x86: apic - unify init_bsp_APIC Message-ID: <20080815115147.GA32726@elte.hu> References: <20080814183428.550709025@gmail.com> <20080814184652.475361864@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.3 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.3 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00,FRT_LEVITRA autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 1.8 FRT_LEVITRA BODY: ReplaceTags: Levitra -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 * Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki > wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Jan 1970, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > >> @@ -962,7 +962,8 @@ void __init init_bsp_APIC(void) > >> */ > >> apic_write(APIC_LVT0, APIC_DM_EXTINT); > >> value = APIC_DM_NMI; > >> - if (!lapic_is_integrated()) /* 82489DX */ > >> + /* discrete on 82489DX */ > >> + if (!lapic_is_integrated()) > >> value |= APIC_LVT_LEVEL_TRIGGER; > >> apic_write(APIC_LVT1, value); > >> } > > > > Please elaborate. > > > > Maciej > > > > Hi Maciej, > > don't really understand what do you mean. [...] i suspect the question might have been: 'why this change'. If that was the question, the answer would be: to unify apic_32.c and apic_64.c we first use tiny little changes to bring the two files in sync. Presumably, each such change is a NOP or at least very safe - and clearly bisectable in the worst-case. In this case, something that only makes sense on 32-bit has been added over to the 64-bit side. The resulting apic.c file will have to have legacy code as well - but hopefully not too much. Cyrill, i've applied your series to tip/x86/apic. (i have fixed the timestamps) Please address Maciej's feedback as well, in subsequent patches. Ingo