From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760341AbZE0XWc (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 19:22:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758675AbZE0XWV (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 19:22:21 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:57957 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756967AbZE0XWU (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 19:22:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 01:21:49 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: "Huang, Ying" , Brian Maly , Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "dannf@hp.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: add x86 support for rtc-efi Message-ID: <20090527232149.GA3830@elte.hu> References: <49DA40B9.2060804@redhat.com> <49DA817E.8040705@intel.com> <49DA8875.5050009@redhat.com> <20090409161803.f79c0b64.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090410135102.GB24809@elte.hu> <49ECADAB.4020609@redhat.com> <20090420172045.GA17887@elte.hu> <49ECBD31.9010607@intel.com> <1243230547.31256.65.camel@yhuang-dev.sh.intel.com> <4A1AC741.3060600@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A1AC741.3060600@intel.com> 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=3.2.3 -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 * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Huang, Ying wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 02:21 +0800, Anvin, H Peter wrote: >>> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>> * Brian Maly 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