Hi Jon, thanks for replying > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Masters [mailto:j...@redhat.com] > Sent: 21 December 2015 23:11 > To: Arnd Bergmann > Cc: Gabriele Paoloni; Tomasz Nowicki; bhelg...@google.com; > will.dea...@arm.com; catalin.mari...@arm.com; r...@rjwysocki.net; > hanjun....@linaro.org; lorenzo.pieral...@arm.com; ok...@codeaurora.org; > jiang....@linux.intel.com; stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com; > robert.rich...@caviumnetworks.com; m...@semihalf.com; liviu.du...@arm.com; > dda...@caviumnetworks.com; t...@linutronix.de; Wangyijing; > suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com; msal...@redhat.com; linux- > p...@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux- > a...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linaro- > a...@lists.linaro.org; jchan...@broadcom.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 22/23] pci, acpi: Match PCI config space > accessors against platfrom specific quirks. > > Sorry for top-posting. A quick note that SMBIOS3 is required by SBBR so > it can be presumed that compliant platforms will provide quirks via DMI.
Ok so you completely clarified my question 1). Many Thanks for this Gab > > -- > Computer Architect | Sent from my 64-bit #ARM Powered phone > > > On Dec 21, 2015, at 09:11, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > On Monday 21 December 2015, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel- > >>> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Tomasz Nowicki > > > >>> Some platforms may not be fully compliant with generic set of PCI > >>> config accessors. For these cases we implement the way to overwrite > >>> accessors set before PCI buses enumeration. Algorithm that > overwrite > >>> accessors matches against platform ID (DMI), domain and bus number, > >>> hopefully enough for all cases. All quirks can be defined using: > >>> DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP() and keep self contained. > >> > >> I've got a couple of comments/questions about this patch.. > >> > >> 1) So according to this mechanism quirks would be supported only by > >> vendors whose BIOS are SMBIOS compliant. Now personally I am ok > >> with this but I don't know if this is OK in general as it would > >> narrow down the number of platforms that would be able to define > >> the quirks... > >> Lorenzo, Arnd what is your opinion here? > > > > I'd rather not see the quirks in mainline at all, and only support > > SBSA compliant machines, or require the BIOS to work around the > > hardware quirks differently (e.g. by trapping config space access > > through secure firmware, or going through an AML method to be > > defined). I'm certainly ok with making it depend on SMBIOS if we are > going to use something like this. > > > > Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
