From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753901AbZEYQ24 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 12:28:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752589AbZEYQ2s (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 12:28:48 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:25848 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752545AbZEYQ2r (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 12:28:47 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,245,1241420400"; d="scan'208";a="460271387" Message-ID: <4A1AC741.3060600@intel.com> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 09:28:49 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Huang, Ying" CC: Ingo Molnar , Brian Maly , Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "dannf@hp.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: add x86 support for rtc-efi 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> In-Reply-To: <1243230547.31256.65.camel@yhuang-dev.sh.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -hpa