Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:59:20 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
        David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
        Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
        Jayachandran C <jchandra@...adcom.com>,
        Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
        Duc Dang <dhdang@....com>,
        Robert Richter <robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com>,
        Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
        Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
        Wangyijing <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
        Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linaro ACPI Mailman List <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Gallo <andrea.gallo@...aro.org>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        "liudongdong (C)" <liudongdong3@...wei.com>,
        Jeff Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 3/5] PCI: thunder-pem: Allow to probe PEM-specific
 register range for ACPI case

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:10:55PM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> Hi Bjorn
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> > 
> > If future hardware is completely ECAM-compliant and we don't need any
> > more MCFG quirks, that would be great.
> > 
> > But we'll still need to describe that memory-mapped config space
> > somewhere.  If that's done with PNP0C02 or similar devices (as is done
> > on my x86 laptop), we'd be all set.
> > 
> > If we need to work around firmware in the field that doesn't do that,
> > one possibility is a PNP quirk along the lines of
> > quirk_amd_mmconfig_area().
> 
> So, if my understanding is correct, for platforms that have not been
> shipped yet you propose to use PNP0C02 in the ACPI table in order to
> declare a motherboard reserved resource whereas for shipped platforms
> you propose to have a quirk along pnp_fixups in order to track the
> resource usage even if values are hardcoded...correct?

Yes.  I'm open to alternate proposals, but x86 uses PNP0C02, and
following existing practice seems reasonable.

> Before Tomasz came up with this patchset we had a call between the vendors
> involved in this PCI quirks saga and other guys from Linaro and ARM.
> 
> Lorenzo summarized the outcome as in the following link
> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1606.2/03344.html
> 
> Since this quirks mechanism has been discussed for quite a long time now
> IMHO it would be good to have a last call including also you (Bjorn) so
> that we can all agree on what to do and we avoid changing our drivers again
> and again...

I think we're converging pretty fast.  As far as I'm concerned, the
v6 ECAM quirks implementation is perfect.  The only remaining issue is
reporting the ECAM resources, and I haven't seen objections to using
PNP0C02 + PNP quirks for broken firmware.

There is the question of how or whether to associate a PNP0A03 PCI
bridge with resources from a different PNP0C02 device, but that's not
super important.  If the hard-coded resources appear both in a quirk
and in the PCI bridge driver, it's ugly but not the end of the world.
We've still achieved the objective of avoiding landmines in the
address space.

Bjorn

Powered by blists - more mailing lists