From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lan Tianyu Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:35:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] X86/PCI/ACPI: Rework setup_resource() via functions ACPI resource functions Message-Id: <522A0437.40802@intel.com> List-Id: References: <1378477486-8758-1-git-send-email-tianyu.lan@intel.com> <1378477486-8758-5-git-send-email-tianyu.lan@intel.com> <5229FC3D.9040308@intel.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Len Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Yinghai Lu , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Tony Luck , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" On 09/06/2013 12:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Lan Tianyu wrote: >> On 09/06/2013 11:36 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >>> Please make corresponding changes to arch/ia64/pci/pci.c so that these >>> paths remain as similar as possible. There's quite a bit of >>> similarity between this x86 and ia64 code, and it would be nice to >>> unify them more when possible. >>> >> >> OK. Actually, I have such plan. I will do that if there is no objection on >> this patchset. > > Great, I'm glad to hear that! I'm not sure whether you mean "after > this patchset is accepted" or "as part of this patchset if it seems a > reasonable path." I vote for the latter, because if we put in the > parts people care about, i.e., x86, the rest seems to never happen. > That's not surprising; whose manager will approve extra time to work > on an arch that's not on their critical path? But in my opinion, > doing just x86 is only doing half the job, and we have to do the whole > thing if we want to keep Linux maintainable in the future. I mean the later. :). Yes, Linux maintainable is very important. My plan is to find all such cases of converting ACPI resource to generic resource but not using ACPI resource function and rework them. > > Bjorn >