Hi Mark, On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 09:10:53 +0100, Mark Kettenis <openbsd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Marc, > > What can I do to make progress with my binding proposal? It seems we're stuck > on the MSI issue where you and robh disagree. I still think your idea of > describing the MSIs as a range makes much more sense than describing them > individually and bunching them together with the host bridge port interrupts. > It looks like I missed an email from Rob, which explains why we're in limbo (it was left unread and unmarked, which in my flow means "read once I have too much time on my hands"). Apologies for that, I'll try and reply tonight (travelling at the moment). > Op 15-08-2021 09:09 schreef Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi Alyssa, > > On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 05:25:24 +0100, > Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Document the properties used by the Apple PCI controller. This is a > fairly standard PCI controller, although it is not derived from any > known non-Apple IP. > > Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I would rather you post something as an extension to Mark's work, for > multiple reasons: > > - Mark's patch is still being discussed, and is the current > reference (specially given that it is already in use in OpenBSD and > u-boot). > > - we cannot have multiple bindings. There can only be one, shared > across implementations. Otherwise, you need a different kernel > depending on whether you are booting from m1n1 or u-boot. > > - what you have here is vastly inconsistent (you are describing the > MSIs twice, using two different methods). > > That's probably my fault. The current u-boot device tree is a bit of a > Frankenstein thing to ease the transition from my initial binding to the > current proposal. I should clean that up at some point. That would certainly help. There are a lot of moving pieces at the moment, and it is getting hard to get a clear picture of what is using what. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
