From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org (Ard Biesheuvel)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:09:56 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v3] efifb: avoid reconfiguration of BAR that covers the
 framebuffer
In-Reply-To: <20170330100524.GA22801@red-moon>
References: <1490196629-28088-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <20170322193111.GA8190@wunner.de>
 <CAKv+Gu_X-SEnz7h9J8boqqjOQGHQawwdSAq4haH-OGu8zdfNfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170323084819.GA23281@h08.hostsharing.net>
 <CAKv+Gu93eJ-js3g7M6Jdm6XGMaWMswFmzBG2qNT4rn+3=1+EyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170323105727.GA2441@red-moon>
 <466dcd2b-a781-2fe7-6ef0-5a3767c793e0@codeaurora.org>
 <CAKv+Gu9LbwpnJNi1OL25MWvYPxEOfKRHcs2jA2121BPaQWPzow@mail.gmail.com>
 <27f50de3-721e-e8ec-00c8-b7a9d3cff0d6@codeaurora.org>
 <CAKv+Gu-qRg8-YRCairppKrEfeLcW+OwVF8qZHp7vxXJA_AwPOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170330100524.GA22801@red-moon>
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu-ff98HrPK3f+E8soGJUXaaMxPLs2AuJ+rvXd0HWX-jXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 30 March 2017 at 11:05, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> 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.