[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160921191845.GD20006@localhost>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:18:45 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Duc Dang <dhdang@....com>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
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>,
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>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com>,
Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>, 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>,
Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@...wei.com>,
Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...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 11:58:22AM -0700, Duc Dang wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:05:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > The existing x86 practice is to use PNP0C02 devices for this purpose,
> > and I think we should just follow that practice.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > My point is that the hard-coding should not be buried in a driver
> > where it's invisible to the rest of the kernel. If we hard-code it in
> > a quirk that adds _CRS entries, then the kernel will work just like it
> > would if the firmware had been correct in the first place. The
> > resource will appear in /sys/devices/pnp*/*/resources and /proc/iomem,
> > and if we ever used _SRS to assign or move ACPI devices, we would know
> > to avoid the bridge resource.
>
> Are you suggesting to add code similar to functions in
> linux/drivers/pnp/quirks.c to declare/attach the additional resource
> that the host need to have when the resource is not in MCFG table?
Yes, but what I'm suggesting is actually a little stronger. This has
nothing to do with whether a resource is in the MCFG table or not.
I'm suggesting ACPI firmware should always describe the resource. If the
firmware is defective and doesn't describe it, we should add a quirk in
pnp/quirks.c to add a resource for it.
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists