Hi Sinan > -----Original Message----- > From: Sinan Kaya [mailto:okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 13 June 2016 15:03 > To: Gabriele Paoloni; liudongdong (C); helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; > arnd@xxxxxxxx; will.deacon@xxxxxxx; catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx; > rafael@xxxxxxxxxx; hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx; Lorenzo.Pieralisi@xxxxxxx; > jchandra@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tn@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: robert.richter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mw@xxxxxxxxxxxx; > Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx; ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wangyijing; > Suravee.Suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx; msalter@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linaro- > acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jcm@xxxxxxxxxx; andrea.gallo@xxxxxxxxxx; > dhdang@xxxxxxx; jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx; cov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chenxin > (Charles); Linuxarm > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI/PCI: Match PCI config space > accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks > > On 6/13/2016 9:54 AM, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > > As you can see here Liudongdong has replaced oem_revision with > > oem_table_id. > > > > Now it seems that there are some platforms that have already shipped > > using a matching based on the oem_revision (right Jon?) > > > > However I guess that if in FW they have defined oem_table_id properly > > they should be able to use this mechanism without needing to a FW > update. > > > > Can these vendors confirm this? > > > > Tomasz do you think this can work for Cavium Thunder? > > > > Thanks > > > > Gab > > Why not have all three of them? > > The initial approach was OEM id and revision id. > > Jeff Hugo indicated that addition (not removing any other fields) of > table id > would make more sense. Mmm from last email of Jeff Hugo on "[RFC PATCH 1/3] pci, acpi: Match PCI config space accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks." I quote: "Using the OEM revision field does not seem to be appropriate since these are different platforms and the revision field appears to be for the purpose of tracking differences within a single platform. Therefore, Cov is proposing using the OEM table id as a mechanism to distinguish platform A (needs quirk applied) vs platform B (no quirks) from the same OEM." So it looks to me that he pointed out that using the OEM revision field is wrong...and this is why I have asked if replacing it with the table id can work for other vendors.... Thanks Gab > > -- > 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 ?韬{.n?????%??檩??w?{.n???{饼??Ф?塄}?财??j:+v?? ? ???2??璀??摺?囤??z夸z罐?+?????w棹f
