Re: [PATCH] x86: add apic probe for genapic 64bit v2

["Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>> >
>> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > v2: fix compiling when CONFIG_ACPI is not set
>> >>
>> >> applied to tip/x86/x2apic - thanks Yinghai.
>> >>
>> >> > +static struct genapic *apic_probe[] __initdata = {
>> >> > +   &apic_x2apic_uv_x,
>> >> > +   &apic_x2apic_phys,
>> >> > +   &apic_x2apic_cluster,
>> >> > +   &apic_physflat,
>> >> > +   NULL,
>> >> > +};
>> >>
>> >> very nice generalization!
>> >
>> > btw.:
>> >
>> >   apic_probe[i]->acpi_madt_oem_check
>> >
>> > should probably be renamed to something more neutral like "->probe" -
>> > there's nothing ACPI about it and some weird boxes could use PCI or
>> > other probing mechanisms to discover the type of APIC they want to use.
>>
>> 32bit has acpi_madt_oem_check and mps_oem_check
>> 64bit should only have acpi_madt_oem_check
>
> yeah.
>
> It's just a small detail: what i mean is that the method itself should
> eventually simply be renamed from "acpi_madt_oem_check" to "probe".
> There's nothing ACPI about this exept the fact that most current "is
> this the APIC driver we should be using" checks involve some sort of
> ACPI discovery. This is a Linux abstraction and as such a more generic
> name like "probe" sounds more appropriate.

OK

YH