On 13.04.2016 23:18, Sinan Kaya wrote:
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.
I need to disagree. What would be the use case for patches w/o "PCI part" ?
Tomasz
--
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
