On 13.02.2011, at 12:14, David Gibson wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:15:03AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 00:52 +0200, Blue Swirl wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt > [snip] >> Actually, one thing I noticed is that the current patches David posted >> still have a single function with a switch/case statement for hcalls. >> >> I'm not 100% certain what David long term plans are here, but in our >> internal "WIP" tree, we've subsequently turned that into a mechanism >> where any module can call powerpc_register_hypercall() to add hcalls. >> >> So if David intends to move the "upstream candidate" tree in that >> direction, then naturally, the calls in spapr_hcall.c are going to >> disappear in favor of a pair of powerpc_register_hypercall() locally in >> the vty module. > > Ah, yeah. I'm still not sure what to do about it. I was going to > fold the dynamic hcall registration into the patch set before > upstreaming. But then something paulus said made me rethink whether > the dynamic registration was a good idea. Still need to sort this out > before the series is really ready.
We can surely move it to dynamic later on. I think the "proper" way would be to populate a qdev bus and have the individual hypercall receivers register themselves through -device creations. But Blue really is the expert here :). Alex
