On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:53:34PM +0530, Goswami, Sanket wrote: > On 25-Mar-21 22:35, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:26:55PM +0530, Goswami, Sanket wrote: > >> On 09-Mar-21 19:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 07:01:47PM +0530, Sanket Goswami wrote:
... > > And I think I already have told you that I prefer to see rather MODEL_ > > quirk. > > I did not find MODEL_ quirk reference in the PCI device tree, It is actually > used in platform device tree which is completely different from our PCI > based configuration, can you please provide some reference of MODEL_ quirk > which will be part of the PCI device tree? I meant the name of new definition for quirk. ... > >>> Also why (1) and this can't be instantiated from ACPI / DT? > >> It is in line with the existing PCIe-based DesignWare driver, > >> A similar approach is used by the various vendors. > > > > Here is no answer to the question. What prevents you to fix your ACPI > > tables or > > DT? > > > > We already got rid of FIFO hard coded values, timings are harder to achieve, > > but we expect that new firmwares will provide values in the ACPI tables. > > AMD NAVI GPU card is the PCI initiated driver, not ACPI initiated, Which doesn't prevent to have an ACPI companion (via description in the tables). > and also > It does not contain a corresponding ACPI match table. Yes, that's what should be done in the firmware. At least for the new version of firmware consider to add proper data into the tables. > Moreover, AMD NAVI GPU > based products are already in the commercial market hence going by this > approach will break the functionalities for the same. This is quite bad and unfortunate. So, you have to elaborate this in the commit message. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
