linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 4/7] ARM64, ACPI, PCI: I/O Remapping Table (IORT) initial support.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 14 Apr 2016 09:20:45 +0200
From:	Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>
To:	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	jason@...edaemon.net, rjw@...ysocki.net, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
	robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com, shijie.huang@....com,
	Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com, hanjun.guo@...aro.org
Cc:	al.stone@...aro.org, mw@...ihalf.com, graeme.gregory@...aro.org,
	Catalin.Marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, ddaney.cavm@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/7] ARM64, ACPI, PCI: I/O Remapping Table (IORT)
 initial support.

On 13.04.2016 23:18, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 4/13/2016 11:52 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> Sure. Please see:
>>>> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0049a/DEN0049A_IO_Remapping_Table.pdf
>>>> 3.1.1.5 PCI root complex node
>>>> PCI Segment number -> The PCI segment number, as in MCFG and as
>>>> returned by _SEG in the namespace.
>>>>
>>>> So IORT spec states that pci_segment_number corresponds to the segment
>>>> number from MCFG table and _SEG method. Here is my patch which makes
>>>> sure pci_domain_nr(bus) is set properly:
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/16/418
>> Lovely. So this series is actually dependent on the PCI one. I guess we
>> need to solve that one first, because IORT seems pretty pointless if we
>> don't have PCI support. What's the plan?
>
> Would it be OK to split the PCI specific section of the patch and continue
> review? PCI is a user of the IORT table. Not the other way around.

I need to disagree. What would be the use case for patches w/o "PCI part" ?

Tomasz