From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/acpi: add retrieval function for rsdp address Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:43:40 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180125143639.9969-1-jgross@suse.com> <20180125143639.9969-2-jgross@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Juergen Gross , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Len Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ingo Molnar , Boris Ostrovsky , Stable List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko > wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> On 26/01/18 19:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>> The problem with weak functions that we can't have more than one >>>> implementation per kernel while we would like to built several code >>>> paths. >>>> >>>> I have stumbled on the similar stuff and realize that. >>>> >>>> Perhaps, one of the solution is to have an additional struct under >>>> x86_init to alternate ACPI related stuff. >>> >>> I think we can go that route when another user of that interface is >>> appearing. >> >> Why not to establish the struct? At least this route I would like to >> go with [1]. >> >> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/17/834 > > Maybe I'm a bit slow today, but care to explain what exactly you mean? Instead of declaring function as __weak, establish a new struct for ACPI related stubs and incorporate it into x86_init. That is my proposal. I think I would go this way in my case where I need to treat differently ACPI HW reduced initialization of legacy devices. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko