On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 01:27:23PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Jayachandran C <jchandra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:30:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi > >>> <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:37:00PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Tomasz Nowicki <tn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [cut] > > > > > If we are moving the ACPI/PCI code from drivers/acpi to > > arch/arm64/ , there is an issue in having the header file > > ecam.h in drivers/pci > > > > The current include of "../pci/ecam.h" is slightly ugly (Arnd > > and David had already noted this), but including the driver > > header from arch code would be even worse. > > > > I can either merge ecam.h into include/linux/pci.h > > or move it to a new file include/linux/pci-ecam.h, any > > suggestion on which is preferable? > > My preference would be pci-ecam.h as we did a similar thing for > pci-dma.h, for example, but basically this is up to Bjorn. A word of caution for all interested parties, what we may move to arch/arm64 (if Catalin and Will are ok with that) here is content of drivers/acpi/pci_root_generic.c, not drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c (and definitely not the MCFG quirks handling that is coming up next on top of this series). I just wanted to make sure we understand that MCFG quirks handling like eg: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/28/790 that is coming up following this series has no chance whatsoever to be handled within arch/arm64, it is just not going to happen. Maybe I am jumping the gun, I just want to make sure that everyone is aware that moving part of this series to arch/arm64 has implications, (and that's why I said that moving part of this code to arch/arm64 is not as simple as it looks) it may be ok to have an ACPI PCI implementation that is arch/arm64 specific (mostly for IO space and PCI resources assignment handling that unfortunately is not uniform across X86, IA64 and ARM64), but MCFG quirks and related platform code stay out of arch/arm64 I guess we are all aware of that, just wanted to make sure :) 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
