>>> Julien Grall <julien.gr...@citrix.com> 04/26/15 7:33 PM >>> >On 26/04/2015 05:32, Wang, Wei W wrote: >> 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.
I fully agree - bad examples shouldn't lead to more bad stuff getting added. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
