On 2017-03-30 06:09, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 30 March 2017 at 11:05, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:46:39AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
[...]
> I'm asking why we don't fix the actual problem in PCIe ARM64 adaptation instead
> of working around it by quirks.
>
> I don't see any reason why ACPI ARM64 should carry the burden of legacy systems.
>
> Legacy only applies to DT based systems.
>
I fully agree with this point: ACPI implies firmware, and so we
should
be able to rely on firmware to have initialized the PCIe subsystem by
the time the kernel gets to access it.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/3/458
I don't think the fact that at least one system existed over a year
ago whose UEFI assigned resources incorrectly should prevent us from
being normative in this case.
My suggestion is to try to reuse the resources if possible. Otherwise,
reassign the resources.
There were implementation problems by the time you proposed your patch
and it was delaying progess. That was my objection.
Now that base pci support is in and everybody is somewhat happy, let's
figure out the bugs and get this done.
I am ready to test/debug.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
