On 12.01.2023 13:08, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
> On 1/12/23 13:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.01.2023 09:44, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h
>>> @@ -140,8 +140,22 @@ extern u32 pmtmr_ioport;
>>> extern unsigned int pmtmr_width;
>>>
>>> void acpi_iommu_init(void);
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU
>>> int acpi_dmar_init(void);
>>> +void acpi_dmar_zap(void);
>>> +void acpi_dmar_reinstate(void);
>>> +#else
>>> +static inline int acpi_dmar_init(void) { return -ENODEV; }
>>> +static inline void acpi_dmar_zap(void) {}
>>> +static inline void acpi_dmar_reinstate(void) {}
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Leaving aside my request to drop that part of patch 3, you've kept
>> declarations for VT-d in the common header there. Which I consider
>> correct, knowing that VT-d was also used on IA-64 at the time. As
>> a result I would suppose movement might better be done in the other
>> direction here.
>
> I moved it to the x86-specific header because acpi_dmar_init() was
> declared there.
> I can move all of them to the common header.
I would prefer you doing so, yes, of course unless others object.
Jan
