On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 06:49:47PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Hi Boqun, > > Sorry, I just got back from holiday and I'm still in the deleting emails > mode. > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 12:13:22AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > Appreciate it that you can have a look at this one and patch #4, note > > that there exists an alternative solution at[1]. > > > > The difference is the way used to pass the corresponding ACPI device > > pointers for PCI host bridges: currently pci_config_window->parent is > > used, and this patch and patch #4 allow the field to be NULL, because > > Hyper-V's PCI host bridges don't have ACPI devices, while [1] changes to > > use pci_host_bridge->private. And I'm OK with either way, I don't have a > > strong opinion here ;-) > [...] > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210811153619.88922-1-boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx/ > > I'm ok with the arm64 bits in this series and the one you linked above. > It's up to Lorenzo if he's happy with how pci-hyperv.c ends up looking, > I'm not a PCIe expert. My preference would be for a combined series > (this and [1] above). > > Happy to ack the arm64 patches in a combined series (if you are going to > post one), the changes would look even simpler. I believe [1] above is an experiment - therefore it is best to stick to this series as it is for the time being, pending refactoring that requires more time, I would not rush it. If you can ACK the arm64 patches (3,4) please I will pull the series into the PCI tree asap. Thanks, Lorenzo
