Re: [PATCH V7 00/11] Support for generic ACPI based PCI host controller

[Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>]

On 20 May 2016 at 10:40, Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi Ard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org]
[...]
>>
>> Is the PCIe root complex so special that you cannot simply describe an
>> implementation that is not PNP0408 compatible as something else, under
>> its own unique HID? If everybody is onboard with using ACPI, how is
>> this any different from describing other parts of the platform
>> topology? Even if the SBSA mandates generic PCI, they already deviated
>> from that when they built the hardware, so pretending that it is a
>> PNP0408 with quirks really does not buy us anything.
>
> From my understanding we want to avoid this as this would allow each
> vendor to come up with his own code and it would be much more effort
> for the PCI maintainer to rework the PCI framework to accommodate X86
> and "all" ARM64 Host Controllers...
>
> I guess this approach is too risky and we want to avoid this. Through
> standardization we can more easily maintain the code and scale it to
> multiple SoCs...
>
> So this is my understanding; maybe Jon, Tomasz or Lorenzo can give
> a bit more explanation...
>

OK, so that boils down to recommending to vendors to represent known
non-compliant hardware as compliant, just so that we don't have to
change the code to support additional flavors of ECAM ? It's fine to
be pragmatic, but that sucks.

We keep confusing the x86 case with the ARM case here: for x86, they
needed to deal with broken hardware *after* the fact, and all they
could do is find /some/ distinguishing feature in order to guess which
exact hardware they might be running on. For arm64, it is the opposite
case. We are currently in a position where we can demand vendors to
comply with the standards they endorsed themselves, and (ab)using ACPI
+ DMI as a de facto platform description rather than plain ACPI makes
me think the DT crowd were actually right from the beginning. It
*directly* violates the standardization principle, since it requires a
priori knowledge inside the OS that a certain 'generic' device must be
driven in a special way.

So can anyone comment on the feasibility of adding support for devices
with vendor specific HIDs (and no generic CIDs) to the current ACPI
ECAM driver in Linux?