Hi Jon, thanks for replying > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Masters [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 21 December 2015 23:11 > To: Arnd Bergmann > Cc: Gabriele Paoloni; Tomasz Nowicki; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Wangyijing; > [email protected]; [email protected]; linux- > [email protected]; [email protected]; linux- > [email protected]; [email protected]; linaro- > [email protected]; [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday 21 December 2015, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-kernel- > >>> [email protected]] 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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
