On Wed, 2018-11-07 at 15:30 -0800, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > [...] > > > Sure, you can't *force* OEMs to supply a given ACPI device, but you > > can certainly say "if you want this functionality, supply INT3401 > > devices." That's what you do with PNP0A03 (PCI host bridges), for > > example. If an OEM doesn't supply PNP0A03 devices, the system can > > boot just fine as long as you don't need PCI. > > > > This model of using the PCI IDs forces OS vendors to release > > updates > > for every new platform. I guess you must have considered that and > > decided whatever benefit you're getting was worth the cost. > > Not worth cost. This is a pain. Every release we end up adding a > single > line change to many drivers adding a PCI device id. > Since there is no unique class_mask for PCI device for these devices, > we need to add device_id for each generation even if there is no > change. > Instead if we have some feature to say don't enumerate for PCI device > id < X and a black list, it will save lot of work. This still needs some work on our internal PCI device allocation scheme , where we can reserve a block of ids for a PCI device for same functionality from generation to generation. Thanks, Srinivas
