From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Make PCI optional for ACPI on ARM64 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:37:39 +0000 Message-ID: <20150119103737.GD11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1421247905-3749-7-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150116094913.GA13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54BB51F1.8000900@linaro.org> <508480149.12941388.1421562696311.JavaMail.zimbra@zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <54BB56CB.7040701@linaro.org> <20150118092955.GE6182@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com ([217.140.108.86]:37658 "EHLO foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751553AbbASKhu (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 05:37:50 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150118092955.GE6182@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Graeme Gregory Cc: "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , "jcm@redhat.com" , Mark Rutland , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , Will Deacon , "wangyijing@huawei.com" , Rob Herring , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Timur Tabi , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 09:29:56AM +0000, Graeme Gregory wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 02:46:35PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > On 2015=E5=B9=B401=E6=9C=8818=E6=97=A5 14:31, Jon Masters wrote: > > >Hi Folks, > > > > > >Sorry for top posting from bed. The mainstream servers will all li= kely do > > > PCIe but there are several that may not. They should not be exclu= ded. That > > said, > > >if we booted a previously built kernel on a system without an MCFG= and > > > got no ECAM/root then things would probably still work. > > > > > >I think it'll work out either way but for the record there is no r= equirement to do PCIe on ARM servers that conform to spec. > >=20 > > OK, Catalin already said that was not the main point of the > > comments for this patch, I think the title and change log > > of the patch is inconsistent with the code makes Catalin confused, > > I will update them in next version. >=20 > Well what we are talking about is the presence of CONFIG_PCI=3Dy whic= h even > in Jons case will be true as he wants to run the same kernel on both > sets of hardware. >=20 > Now the architecture has PCI support I think its safe to remove the m= ake > PCI optional part of the patch as this should be handled runtime not > compile time. I agree, if we never see a reason to build a kernel image with !PCI && ACPI, we can simplify this patch. --=20 Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752169AbbASKhy (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 05:37:54 -0500 Received: from foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com ([217.140.108.86]:37658 "EHLO foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751553AbbASKhu (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 05:37:50 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:37:39 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: Graeme Gregory Cc: "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , "jcm@redhat.com" , Mark Rutland , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , Will Deacon , "wangyijing@huawei.com" , Rob Herring , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Timur Tabi , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , Randy Dunlap , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , Sudeep Holla , Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Make PCI optional for ACPI on ARM64 Message-ID: <20150119103737.GD11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1421247905-3749-7-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150116094913.GA13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54BB51F1.8000900@linaro.org> <508480149.12941388.1421562696311.JavaMail.zimbra@zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <54BB56CB.7040701@linaro.org> <20150118092955.GE6182@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20150118092955.GE6182@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk> Thread-Topic: [PATCH v7 06/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Make PCI optional for ACPI on ARM64 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 09:29:56AM +0000, Graeme Gregory wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 02:46:35PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > On 2015年01月18日 14:31, Jon Masters wrote: > > >Hi Folks, > > > > > >Sorry for top posting from bed. The mainstream servers will all likely do > > > PCIe but there are several that may not. They should not be excluded. That > > said, > > >if we booted a previously built kernel on a system without an MCFG and > > > got no ECAM/root then things would probably still work. > > > > > >I think it'll work out either way but for the record there is no requirement to do PCIe on ARM servers that conform to spec. > > > > OK, Catalin already said that was not the main point of the > > comments for this patch, I think the title and change log > > of the patch is inconsistent with the code makes Catalin confused, > > I will update them in next version. > > Well what we are talking about is the presence of CONFIG_PCI=y which even > in Jons case will be true as he wants to run the same kernel on both > sets of hardware. > > Now the architecture has PCI support I think its safe to remove the make > PCI optional part of the patch as this should be handled runtime not > compile time. I agree, if we never see a reason to build a kernel image with !PCI && ACPI, we can simplify this patch. -- Catalin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:37:39 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v7 06/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Make PCI optional for ACPI on ARM64 In-Reply-To: <20150118092955.GE6182@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk> References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1421247905-3749-7-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150116094913.GA13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54BB51F1.8000900@linaro.org> <508480149.12941388.1421562696311.JavaMail.zimbra@zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <54BB56CB.7040701@linaro.org> <20150118092955.GE6182@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk> Message-ID: <20150119103737.GD11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 09:29:56AM +0000, Graeme Gregory wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 02:46:35PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > On 2015?01?18? 14:31, Jon Masters wrote: > > >Hi Folks, > > > > > >Sorry for top posting from bed. The mainstream servers will all likely do > > > PCIe but there are several that may not. They should not be excluded. That > > said, > > >if we booted a previously built kernel on a system without an MCFG and > > > got no ECAM/root then things would probably still work. > > > > > >I think it'll work out either way but for the record there is no requirement to do PCIe on ARM servers that conform to spec. > > > > OK, Catalin already said that was not the main point of the > > comments for this patch, I think the title and change log > > of the patch is inconsistent with the code makes Catalin confused, > > I will update them in next version. > > Well what we are talking about is the presence of CONFIG_PCI=y which even > in Jons case will be true as he wants to run the same kernel on both > sets of hardware. > > Now the architecture has PCI support I think its safe to remove the make > PCI optional part of the patch as this should be handled runtime not > compile time. I agree, if we never see a reason to build a kernel image with !PCI && ACPI, we can simplify this patch. -- Catalin