[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181116070125.GG4179@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:01:25 +0200
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
Christian Kellner <ckellner@...hat.com>,
Mario.Limonciello@...l.com,
Anthony Wong <anthony.wong@...onical.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify external PCI devices
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 09:00:54PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:46:08PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > Do you really need to parse it if the dev->is_thunderbolt check is enough ?
>
> Yes, we need to parse it one way or another. dev->is_thunderbolt is
> based on heuristics which do not apply anymore when the thing gets
> integrated in the SoC.
>
> The _DSD is there already (on existing systems) and is being used by
> Windows so I don't understand why we cannot take advantage of it? Every
> new system with Thunderbolt ports will have it.
Just to clarify a bit. We can use is_thunderbolt in place of is_external
if we don't want to deal with other possible "external" devices right now.
However, we still need to parse the _DSD and based on that fill the
is_thunderbolt for these devices (same way we do for is_external in this
series). So basically we just get rid of the is_external flag and use
is_thunderbolt instead.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists