From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933927AbbLPOEl (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:04:41 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:55653 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752333AbbLPOEj (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:04:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:05:56 +0000 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: "Jayachandran C." , tn@semihalf.com Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , bhelgaas@google.com, arnd@arndb.de, rjw@rjwysocki.net, hanjun.guo@linaro.org, jiang.liu@linux.intel.com, ddaney@caviumnetworks.com, Liviu.Dudau@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, wangyijing@huawei.com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com, msalter@redhat.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 00/11] MMCONFIG refactoring and ARM64 PCI hostbridge init based on ACPI Message-ID: <20151216140556.GC22916@red-moon> References: <1445963922-22711-1-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> <20151207203117.GB14429@localhost> <20151209100125.GA12632@jayachandranc.netlogicmicro.com> <20151209155511.GB21048@red-moon> <20151216125136.GE5890@jayachandranc.netlogicmicro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151216125136.GE5890@jayachandranc.netlogicmicro.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 06:21:37PM +0530, Jayachandran C. wrote: [...] > > That list is there to manage hotplug bridges, what makes you think > > it is not necessary ? Jiang (in CC) can certainly comment on that and > > how that list handling can be updated/simplified, if possible. > > Looking thru the code, I think moving the MCFG code to common can be > done in a simpler way. I have posted a new patchset for this. > (And I don't see how the hotplug case needs the list, but that is not > relevant now) You must work with Tomasz and come up with a unified patchset that implements ACPI PCIe support for ARM64. We do not need more churn, we need a working set, period. Posting separate RFCs just adds to the confusion and to maintainers' review backlog, with the end result of confusing everyone and achieving nothing. Lorenzo