On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:26:25AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: [...] > Quoting Bjorn's original reply to the previous series: > > > Some of the code that moved to drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c is not > > really ACPI-specific, and could potentially be used for non-ACPI > > bridges that support ECAM. I'd like to see that sort of code > > moved to a new file like drivers/pci/ecam.c. > > So my guess is that this is the reasoning behind JC's file layout. > > I'm curious what Lorenzo's take on things is currently. I assume this > series is now to be the official coordinated version of this effort for > upstream, following the advice of Bjorn previously, but I would like to > know if everyone is behind this plan. I've (previously) requested a > Linaro LEG meeting this week (part of our bootarch working group) to > specifically discuss the status of PCI upstreaming in order to get the > different vendors together to ensure every single one of them is > tracking the correct latest effort and doing what is needed to test/aid, > hence my ask. If this is now plan A, I'll make sure everyone is aligned > behind it and start pinging people individually for testing. My take is that JC's aim is to get this four patch series reviewed and merged (which is *not* sufficient to get ACPI PCI to work fully on ARM64 - see cover letter - the remaining patches in his branch are not fixes, it is code that is required to get things to work, these 4 patches stand alone are not sufficient but I understand he wants to get them reviewed following feedback on the lists) so that we can make progress on ACPI PCI on ARM64. I will comment on the patches as soon as I have time to review them, I certainly would like to understand what we have to do with the rest of the code though (provided this series is good to go) see above. Lorenzo -- 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
