Hi Tomasz, all, On 05/11/2016 07:08 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > On 11.05.2016 12:41, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: >>> v6 -> v7 >>> - drop quirks handling >> >> Maybe I missed something in the v6 discussion thread; when was it >> decided to drop quirk handling? > > I had such requests in previous series. A quick note on quirk handling. This, I believe, applies post-merge of the base infrastructure, which I realize will likely not have quirks. We've some "gen1" ARMv8 server platforms where we end up doing quirks (for things like forcing 32-bit config space accessors and the like) due to people repurposing existing embedded PCIe IP blocks or using them for the first time (especially in servers), and those being involved in the design not necessarily seeing this problem ahead of time, or not realizing that it would be an issue for servers. In the early days of ARM server designs 3-4 years ago, many of us had never really played with ECAM or realized how modern topologies are built. Anyway. We missed this one in our SBSA requirements. They say (words to the effect of) "thou shalt do PCIe the way it is done on servers" but they aren't prescriptive, and they don't tell people how that actually is in reality. That is being fixed. A lot of things are happening behind the scenes - especially with third party IP block providers (all of whom myself and others are speaking with directly about this) - to ensure that the next wave of designs won't repeat these mistakes. We don't have a time machine, but we can contain this from becoming an ongoing mess for upstream, and we will do so. It won't be a zoo. Various proposals have arisen for how to handle quirks in the longer term, including elaborate frameworks and tables to describe them generically. I would like to caution against such approaches, especially in the case that they deviate from practice on x86, or prior to being standardized fully with other Operating System vendors. I don't expect there to be too many more than the existing initial set of quirks we have seen posted. A number of "future" server SoCs have already been fixed prior to silicon, and new design starts are being warned not to make this a problem for us to have to clean up later. So, I would like to suggest that the eventual framework mirror the existing approach on x86 systems (matching DMI, etc.) and not be made into some kind of generic, utopia. This is a case where we want there to be pain involved (and upstream patches required) when people screw up, so that they have a level of pain in response to ever making this mistake in the future. If we try to create too grand a generic scheme and make it too easy to handle this kind of situation beyond the small number of existing offenders, we undermine efforts to force vendors to ensure that their IP blocks are compliant going forward. Side note: if you're a third party IP vendor and we didn't already speak about this one, drop me a line, and let's collaborate also on your test frameworks to make sure you're covered as well. Jon. -- Computer Architect | Sent from my Fedora powered laptop -- 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
