Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep

From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org,
	"Rafaell J . Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Gang Wei <gang.wei@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:47:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51CB291E02000078000E0DFB__11471.2194227197$1372261741$gmane$org@nat28.tlf.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOvdn6UyPDBLPg5Q-RW-VZp5FBkj+qDWrNZV-HEY3oj05CovrQ@mail.gmail.com>

>>> On 26.06.13 at 16:55, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 26.06.13 at 16:06, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c
>>> @@ -273,7 +273,8 @@ static void tboot_copy_fadt(const struct acpi_table_fadt 
> *fadt)
>>>               offsetof(struct acpi_table_facs, firmware_waking_vector);
>>>  }
>>>
>>> -static int tboot_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 pm1a_control, u32 pm1b_control)
>>> +static int tboot_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 pm1a_control, u32 pm1b_control,
>>> +                    u8 extended)
>>
>> I don't see why this couldn't remain "bool" - the only complain was
>> that ACPI CA shouldn't use it.
> 
> I changed it, in order to keep the prototypes consistent.
> Having the function pointer be defined with one signature in the
> acpica code, and another in the os implementation seems like a
> maintenance problem.

Of course the first patch would need adjustments too: The function
pointer would also want to use bool then. Again - it's only the ACPI
CA code that wants to get away without using bool/true/false.

Jan