On 4/13/2016 11:52 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> > Sure. Please see: >> > http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0049a/DEN0049A_IO_Remapping_Table.pdf >> > 3.1.1.5 PCI root complex node >> > PCI Segment number -> The PCI segment number, as in MCFG and as >> > returned by _SEG in the namespace. >> > >> > So IORT spec states that pci_segment_number corresponds to the segment >> > number from MCFG table and _SEG method. Here is my patch which makes >> > sure pci_domain_nr(bus) is set properly: >> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/16/418 > Lovely. So this series is actually dependent on the PCI one. I guess we > need to solve that one first, because IORT seems pretty pointless if we > don't have PCI support. What's the plan? Would it be OK to split the PCI specific section of the patch and continue review? PCI is a user of the IORT table. Not the other way around. We shouldn't need a two way dependency. -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- 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
