From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933068AbcETIYd (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2016 04:24:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38785 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932749AbcETIYa (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2016 04:24:30 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 00/11] Support for generic ACPI based PCI host controller To: Gabriele Paoloni , Ard Biesheuvel References: <1462893601-8937-1-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> <57331290.7070104@semihalf.com> <3d4aae09-51c4-f007-5100-191a4a85e27a@redhat.com> Cc: Tomasz Nowicki , "helgaas@kernel.org" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "will.deacon@arm.com" , "catalin.marinas@arm.com" , "rafael@kernel.org" , "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , "Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com" , "okaya@codeaurora.org" , "jchandra@broadcom.com" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "dhdang@apm.com" , "Liviu.Dudau@arm.com" , "ddaney@caviumnetworks.com" , "jeremy.linton@arm.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com" , "Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com" , "msalter@redhat.com" , Wangyijing , "mw@semihalf.com" , "andrea.gallo@linaro.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" From: Jon Masters Message-ID: <9a9d2e00-efb4-2607-a410-43af1d3c97c3@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 04:24:18 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Fri, 20 May 2016 08:24:30 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/20/2016 04:11 AM, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > Hi Ard, Jon Hi Gabriele :) > In our case (HiSilicon Hip05/Hip06) we are using the Designware IP > that unfortunately is non-ECAM for the RC config space. Yea, I know, and I've pinged them already. > A possible ACPI table solution was discussed already in this thread > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/14/722 > > where <> > is used to specify an Host Controller specific resource. > It looks to me that this can be an approach that can accommodate > different vendors/scenarios and Bjorn seemed to be quite ok with > it. Yeah, pondering that. We'll chat with a few others about it. > It comes without saying that for future HW releases we all should > make an effort to deliver fully ECAM compliant controllers. Right. Like I said, a number of designs have been fixed already. > What's your view about this approach? Will followup over the weekend. Jon. -- Computer Architect | Sent from my Fedora powered laptop