From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C73E71A71F for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 13:32:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="BcvfdF/g" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1696858343; x=1728394343; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=l6X7t52RMQYAzBBtDAQ5xYHufke1Kv7hNGxphb4I9Vo=; b=BcvfdF/g65hpKzWaJC6k/EHaUp/fcPAdtw5zSSyK8dTBHJWwPAXkEeEM kbIjSfTA2UmFHuzMd/DB+Nmf5MfG9rTT4pVhnSXWOP2uugfSz8slWPqMD VcboRZnxB3+zXOFIuenH1jaZC1HO5eNzkWTsJNBxlZfoR4NqSM5YfeBP7 /d/vKuZUEnj5pE4tKEXJE/s5a2zcsNl8GYrPcktkf7aCAgpviNk39sGS+ RLhmIYeglByEQPADIpasUL7XHbQ9VTDX1ooi0hmZhuAviM0suE7HFnTdq ZVTvc8N9DZtF+soH2+UoJW37vkuY2CVUHUH15wTJ9YfghaOSro4Q5N5+s Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10858"; a="450644576" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,210,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="450644576" Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Oct 2023 06:32:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10858"; a="756719143" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,210,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="756719143" Received: from ahuge-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO box.shutemov.name) ([10.252.40.233]) by fmsmga007-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Oct 2023 06:32:18 -0700 Received: by box.shutemov.name (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 40F1710A196; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 16:32:16 +0300 (+03) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 16:32:16 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Peter Zijlstra , Adrian Hunter , Elena Reshetova , Jun Nakajima , Rick Edgecombe , Tom Lendacky , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] x86/acpi: Extract ACPI MADT wakeup code into a separate file Message-ID: <20231009133216.pmihemrukk6k63mo@box.shutemov.name> References: <20231005131402.14611-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20231005131402.14611-2-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <2be8a356-79c8-49a0-ba93-2a92df119af3@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2be8a356-79c8-49a0-ba93-2a92df119af3@linux.intel.com> On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 11:33:47AM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: > Hi Kirill, > > On 10/5/2023 6:13 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > In order to prepare for the expansion of support for the ACPI MADT > > wakeup method, the relevant code has been moved into a separate file. > > A new configuration option has been introduced to clearly indicate > > dependencies without the use of ifdefs. > > > > There have been no functional changes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov > > --- > > arch/x86/Kconfig | 7 +++ > > arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h | 5 ++ > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/Makefile | 11 ++-- > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 86 +----------------------------- > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/madt_wakeup.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 5 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/acpi/madt_wakeup.c > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > index 3154dbc49cf5..7368d254d01f 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > @@ -1108,6 +1108,13 @@ config X86_LOCAL_APIC > > depends on X86_64 || SMP || X86_32_NON_STANDARD || X86_UP_APIC || PCI_MSI > > select IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY > > > > +config X86_ACPI_MADT_WAKEUP > > + def_bool y > > + depends on X86_64 > > + depends on ACPI > > + depends on SMP > > + depends on X86_LOCAL_APIC > > + > > config X86_IO_APIC > > def_bool y > > depends on X86_LOCAL_APIC || X86_UP_IOAPIC > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h > > index c8a7fc23f63c..b536b5a6a57b 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h > > @@ -73,6 +73,11 @@ static inline bool acpi_skip_set_wakeup_address(void) > > > > #define acpi_skip_set_wakeup_address acpi_skip_set_wakeup_address > > > > +union acpi_subtable_headers; > > + > > +int __init acpi_parse_mp_wake(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, > > + const unsigned long end); > > + > > IMO, you don't need to declare acpi_parse_mp_wake() in asm/acpi.h. Since the > only user of this function is in arch/x86/kernel/acpi, you can either create > a header file there or re-use sleep.h. Is it a really a bid deal? I don't see how it fits into sleep.h and introducing one more header file for one declaration seems excessive. > If you want to leave it here, do you want to protect it with > CONFIG_X86_ACPI_MADT_WAKEUP? Declarations are harmless if nobody uses them. Needless ifdeffery hurts eyes :P -- Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov