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.
