On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 03:57:28 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: >> > >> > To be precise, I don't quite see why it is impossible or invalid for a VF to >> > have a corresponding ACPI device object. It may not be the case on this >> > particular system, but why not in general? >> >> at least for ioapic routing GSI, we should not mix VF to use other PF's >> setting. > > I can agree with that, but your patch is far more general than this. It won't > allow any VF on any system to be "glued" to any ACPI device object and I'm > thinking that that may just go too far. I think that we should look reversely: Is there any reason or use case that we need to bind PCI VF to acpi device? PCI vf is only showing up after PF driver call pci_enable_siov. Yinghai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
