linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Duc Dang <dhdang@apm.com>
To: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
Cc: okaya@codeaurora.org,
	Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com>,
	Rafael Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
	"Chenxin (Charles)" <charles.chenxin@huawei.com>,
	Wangyijing <wangyijing@huawei.com>,
	Andrea Gallo <andrea.gallo@linaro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Tomasz Nowicki <tn@semihalf.com>,
	linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org,
	David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com,
	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	"liudongdong (C)" <liudongdong3@huawei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>,
	Christopher Covington <cov@codeaurora.org>,
	Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>,
	linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Jayachandran C <jchandra@broadcom.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	jeremy.linton@arm.com, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
	Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI/PCI: Match PCI config space accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:07:23 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADaLND=aWkENZVK1Ce9NT4LygGa3LTtG1dCabokDADjEJEgeFQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <036882b9-b781-cb56-2bcf-35afb21b2812@codeaurora.org>

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 6/13/2016 9:12 AM, okaya@codeaurora.org wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-06-13 10:29, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sinan
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Sinan Kaya [mailto:okaya@codeaurora.org]
>>>> Sent: 13 June 2016 15:03
>>>> To: Gabriele Paoloni; liudongdong (C); 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;
>>>> jchandra@broadcom.com; tn@semihalf.com
>>>> Cc: robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com; mw@semihalf.com;
>>>> Liviu.Dudau@arm.com; ddaney@caviumnetworks.com; Wangyijing;
>>>> 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; jcm@redhat.com; andrea.gallo@linaro.org;
>>>> dhdang@apm.com; jeremy.linton@arm.com; cov@codeaurora.org; Chenxin
>>>> (Charles); Linuxarm
>>>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI/PCI: Match PCI config space
>>>> accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks
>>>>
>>>> On 6/13/2016 9:54 AM, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
>>>> > As you can see here Liudongdong has replaced oem_revision with
>>>> > oem_table_id.
>>>> >
>>>> > Now it seems that there are some platforms that have already shipped
>>>> > using a matching based on the oem_revision (right Jon?)
>>>> >
>>>> > However I guess that if in FW they have defined oem_table_id properly
>>>> > they should be able to use this mechanism without needing to a FW
>>>> update.
>>>> >
>>>> > Can these vendors confirm this?
>>>> >
>>>> > Tomasz do you think this can work for Cavium Thunder?
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> >
>>>> > Gab
>>>>
>>>> Why not have all three of them?
>>>>
>>>> The initial approach was OEM id and revision id.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff Hugo indicated that addition (not removing any other fields) of
>>>> table id
>>>> would make more sense.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mmm from last email of Jeff Hugo on "[RFC PATCH 1/3] pci, acpi: Match
>>> PCI config space accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks."
>>>
>>> I quote:
>>>
>>>  "Using the OEM revision
>>>  field does not seem to be appropriate since these are different
>>>  platforms and the revision field appears to be for the purpose of
>>>  tracking differences within a single platform.  Therefore, Cov is
>>>  proposing using the OEM table id as a mechanism to distinguish
>>>  platform A (needs quirk applied) vs platform B (no quirks) from the
>>>  same OEM."
>>>
>>> So it looks to me that he pointed out that using the OEM revision field
>>> is wrong...and this is why I have asked if replacing it with the table
>>> id can work for other vendors....
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Gab
>>>
>>
>> I had an internal discussion with jeff and cov before posting on the
>> maillist.
>>
>> I think there is missing info in the email.
>>
>> Usage of oem id + table id + revision is ok.
>>
>> Usage of oem id + revision is not ok as one oem can build multiple chips
>> with the same oem id and revision id but different table id. Otherwise,
>> we can run out of revisions very quickly.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> I'm sorry for the confusion.  My intent was to point out that revision alone
> appeared insufficient to address all the identified problems, but I believe
> there is still a case for using revision. Table id is useful for
> differentiating between platforms/chips.  Revision is useful for
> differentiation between different versions of a single platform/chip
> assuming the silicon is respun or some other fix is applied.  Both solve
> different scenarios, and I'm not aware of a reason why they could not be
> used together to solve all currently identified cases.

Using OEM ID + Table ID + Revision will work for X-Gene platforms as well.

Regards,
Duc Dang.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sinan Kaya
>>>> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
>>>> Inc.
>>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
>>>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
>
>
> --
> Jeffrey Hugo
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
> Foundation Collaborative Project

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-13 21:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-13 13:02 [RFC PATCH V2 0/2] ECAM quirks handling for ARM64 platforms Dongdong Liu
2016-06-13 13:02 ` [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI/PCI: Match PCI config space accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks Dongdong Liu
2016-06-13 13:54   ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-06-13 14:02     ` Sinan Kaya
2016-06-13 14:29       ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-06-13 15:12         ` okaya
2016-06-13 15:59           ` Jeffrey Hugo
2016-06-13 21:07             ` Duc Dang [this message]
2016-06-16  6:31     ` [Linaro-acpi] " Jon Masters
2016-06-16  7:45       ` Duc Dang
2016-06-16  7:54         ` Jon Masters
2016-06-13 15:47   ` Christopher Covington
2016-06-13 20:57     ` Duc Dang
2016-06-14  5:51       ` Dongdong Liu
2016-06-14  9:00         ` Duc Dang
2016-06-14  9:45           ` Dongdong Liu
2016-06-14 11:52             ` Tomasz Nowicki
2016-06-14 17:43               ` Duc Dang
2016-06-13 13:02 ` [RFC PATCH V2 2/2] ARM64/PCI: Start using quirks handling for ACPI based PCI host controller Dongdong Liu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CADaLND=aWkENZVK1Ce9NT4LygGa3LTtG1dCabokDADjEJEgeFQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=dhdang@apm.com \
    --cc=Liviu.Dudau@arm.com \
    --cc=Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com \
    --cc=andrea.gallo@linaro.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=charles.chenxin@huawei.com \
    --cc=cov@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com \
    --cc=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=jchandra@broadcom.com \
    --cc=jcm@redhat.com \
    --cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
    --cc=jhugo@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=liudongdong3@huawei.com \
    --cc=msalter@redhat.com \
    --cc=mw@semihalf.com \
    --cc=okaya@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=tn@semihalf.com \
    --cc=wangyijing@huawei.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI/PCI: Match PCI config space accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).