On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Andy Shevchenko andy.shevchenko@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki rafael@kernel.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko andy.shevchenko@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Juergen Gross jgross@suse.com wrote:
On 26/01/18 19:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Juergen Gross jgross@suse.com 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].
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.
IOW you'd like to have a set of ACPI init callbacks that could be defined by an arch, right?