On 8/10/21 9:47 AM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c
>>> index 53cab975f612..7d77fc72c2a4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c
>>> @@ -169,6 +169,9 @@ static struct mcfg_fixup mcfg_quirks[] = {
>>> ALTRA_ECAM_QUIRK(1, 13),
>>> ALTRA_ECAM_QUIRK(1, 14),
>>> ALTRA_ECAM_QUIRK(1, 15),
>>> +
>>> + { "bcm2711", "", 0, 0, MCFG_BUS_ANY, &bcm2711_pcie_ops,
>>> + DEFINE_RES_MEM(0xFD500000, 0xA000) },
>>> };
>>>
>>> static char mcfg_oem_id[ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE];
>>> @@ -198,8 +201,19 @@ static void pci_mcfg_apply_quirks(struct acpi_pci_root *root,
>>> u16 segment = root->segment;
>>> struct resource *bus_range = &root->secondary;
>>> struct mcfg_fixup *f;
>>> + const char *soc;
>>> int i;
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * This could be a machine with a PCI/SMC conduit,
>>> + * which means it doens't have MCFG. Get the machineid from
>>> + * the namespace definition instead.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!fwnode_property_read_string(acpi_fwnode_handle(root->device),
>>> + "linux,pcie-quirk", &soc)) {
>>> + memcpy(mcfg_oem_id, soc, ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>
>> Is there any specific reason for not using the firmware agnostic API to get properties?
>>
>>
>> if (!device_property_read_string(root->device, "linux,pcie-quirk", &soc)) {
>> memcpy(mcfg_oem_id, soc, ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE);
>> }
>>
>>
>
> IIRC it was because the "device" here isn't a struct device, rather a
> struct acpi_device. I think this is the normal way in this situation
> since we are directly picking up the fwnode rather than finding a
> generic node and then backtracking to get the fwnode.
Yes, you are right.
