On 26/04/2015 01:33, Julien Grall wrote Hi Julien, > On 26/04/2015 05:32, Wang, Wei W wrote: > > On 24/04/2015 20:57, Julien Grall wrote > >> On 23/04/2016 18:58, Wei Wang wrote: > >>> diff --git a/xen/include/acpi/cpufreq/processor_perf.h > >>> b/xen/include/acpi/cpufreq/processor_perf.h > >>> index d8a1ba6..ebff11d 100644 > >>> --- a/xen/include/acpi/cpufreq/processor_perf.h > >>> +++ b/xen/include/acpi/cpufreq/processor_perf.h > >>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ > >>> > >>> #define XEN_PX_INIT 0x80000000 > >>> > >>> +int intel_pstate_init(void); > >> > >> The intel pstate driver is x86 specific. Although xen/include/acpi > >> contains common headers for common code. > > > > Thanks for your comments. But I saw "int powernow_cpufreq_init(void);" > is put there. > > FWIW, this prototype doesn't have any implementation even on x86. > > While currently some drivers (such as the x86 powernow) may define > prototype in the common header. This is wrong, the common code should > not be able to call those functions. > > There is an ongoing support on ACPI for ARM (an RFC has been sent a couple > of months ago). Adding new x86 prototype in this directory complicate the > splitting. Please help us to at least avoid adding new > x86 specific prototype/code in the common code when it's possible. > > We will take care of moving the current x86 prototype/code in the arch- > specific directories. > > Although, I'm not a maintainer. They may have a different opinion on this > point.
Sure. I will do it if maintainers don't have a different opinion. Best, Wei _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
