Hi Lorenzo, On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > [removed unintended disclaimer] > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45:35PM -0700, Khuong Dinh wrote: >> Hi Lorenzo, >> >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi >> <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi Khuong, >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 02:19:50PM -0700, Khuong Dinh wrote: >> >> Hi Lorenzo, >> >> Do you have any comments for this patch? >> > >> > I'd have some comments but given that there are related issues with ACPI >> > probe ordering that Marc is trying to solve on his side - I will work >> > with him to see if we can accommodate changes that can solve this issue >> > too. >> > >> > Again - I recognize it is a complex problem (that is not even >> > contemplated by the current ACPI specs), we have to try to make >> > the solution as generic as we can to prevent reinventing the wheel >> > anytime a sligthly different issue (related to ACPI probe ordering) >> > comes up. >> > >> > Leave it to me (us) and I will get back to you on this. >> >> Thanks for helping to take care of the generic ACPI probe ordering issue. >> Given that the patch 'PCI/MSI: pci-xgene-msi: Enable MSI support in ACPI >> boot for X-Gene v1" adds only the ACPI ID, can you pull in this patch >> independently from the ACPI probe ordering issue? > > No. For two reasons: > > 1) It's Bjorn who decides whether that code can be merged or not, not me > 2) That patch sneaks in ACPI MSI support for X-gene v1 that depends on > kernel link ordering. As soon as it is pulled in the mainline it > creates a dependency on pseudo-working code that may break anytime > and as I said many times before I am not willing to rely on that. Thanks for your information. I got it. I look forward to hearing your updated information about this generic ACPI probe ordering issue. > Lorenzo
