Hi Jon, thanks for replying > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Masters [mailto:jcm@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 21 December 2015 23:11 > To: Arnd Bergmann > Cc: Gabriele Paoloni; Tomasz Nowicki; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; > will.deacon@xxxxxxx; catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx; Lorenzo.Pieralisi@xxxxxxx; okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > robert.richter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mw@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx; > ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wangyijing; > Suravee.Suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx; msalter@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linaro- > acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jchandra@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 22/23] pci, acpi: Match PCI config space > accessors against platfrom specific quirks. > > Sorry for top-posting. A quick note that SMBIOS3 is required by SBBR so > it can be presumed that compliant platforms will provide quirks via DMI. Ok so you completely clarified my question 1). Many Thanks for this Gab > > -- > Computer Architect | Sent from my 64-bit #ARM Powered phone > > > On Dec 21, 2015, at 09:11, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Monday 21 December 2015, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-kernel- > >>> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tomasz Nowicki > > > >>> Some platforms may not be fully compliant with generic set of PCI > >>> config accessors. For these cases we implement the way to overwrite > >>> accessors set before PCI buses enumeration. Algorithm that > overwrite > >>> accessors matches against platform ID (DMI), domain and bus number, > >>> hopefully enough for all cases. All quirks can be defined using: > >>> DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP() and keep self contained. > >> > >> I've got a couple of comments/questions about this patch.. > >> > >> 1) So according to this mechanism quirks would be supported only by > >> vendors whose BIOS are SMBIOS compliant. Now personally I am ok > >> with this but I don't know if this is OK in general as it would > >> narrow down the number of platforms that would be able to define > >> the quirks... > >> Lorenzo, Arnd what is your opinion here? > > > > I'd rather not see the quirks in mainline at all, and only support > > SBSA compliant machines, or require the BIOS to work around the > > hardware quirks differently (e.g. by trapping config space access > > through secure firmware, or going through an AML method to be > > defined). I'm certainly ok with making it depend on SMBIOS if we are > going to use something like this. > > > > Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
