Re: [RFC patch 00/32] x86: Refactor the setup code to provide a base for embedded platforms

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >  47 files changed, 622 insertions(+), 808 deletions(-)
> 
> Very nice!
> 
> One small detail, before we spread out these patches. While looking 
> at the patches i noticed that at places our new x86 init namespace 
> is very long:
> 
> > +     platform_setup.timers.setup_percpu_clockev = platform_setup_noop;
> > +     platform_cpuhotplug_setup.setup_percpu_clockev = platform_setup_noop;
> > +
> 
> I think we should shorten the name-space a bit - we'll use it in a 
> _lot_ of places, so the shorter, the better and the easier to use. 
> 
> I'd suggest something like:
> 
>      x86_init.timers.init_percpu_clockev = x86_init_noop;
>      x86_cpuhotplug_init.init_percpu_clockev = x86_init_noop;
> 
> ( This also has the advantage that 'init' is the general term we use 
>   for kernel structure initialization - 'setup' is a more 
>   restrictive term we use related to bootloading, most of the time. )

Fair enough.
 
> An even shorter form would be to use 'x86' as a general template for 
> platform details:
> 
>      x86.timers.init_percpu_ce = x86_init_noop;
>      x86_cpuhotplug.init_percpu_ce = x86_init_noop;
> 
> this is even shorter, plus it allows us to put runtime details into 
> this structure as well. Note that the fields themselves 

We should have a separate struct for runtime details otherwise we need
to keep the full init stuff around forever instead of freeing
it. That's why I already have that separate cpuhotplug struct.

> (init_percpu_clockev) already signal the 'init' property 
> sufficiently. Plus 'ce' is an existing, well-known abbreviation for 
> clockevents. (but 'clockev' would be good too - i might be pushing 
> it)

Yes you do. Next you suggest to have x86_i.pcpu_ce :)
 
Thanks,

	tglx