Re: [PATCH v17 08/10] ACPI / scan: do not enumerate Indirect IO host children

[John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>]

On 19/03/2018 10:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:48 AM, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2018 10:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 7:15:57 PM CET John Garry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Through the logical PIO framework systems which otherwise have
>>>>> no IO space access to legacy ISA/LPC devices may access these
>>>>> devices through so-called "indirect IO" method. In this, IO
>>>>> space accesses for non-PCI hosts are redirected to a host
>>>>> LLDD to manually generate the IO space (bus) accesses. Hosts
>>>>> are able to register a region in logical PIO space to map to
>>>>> its bus address range.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indirect IO child devices have an associated host-specific bus
>>>>> address. Special translation is required to map between
>>>>> a logical PIO address for a device and it's host bus address.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since in the ACPI tables the child device IO resources would
>>>>> be the host-specific values, it is required the ACPI scan code
>>>>> should not enumerate these devices, and that this should be
>>>>> the responsibility of the host driver so that it can "fixup"
>>>>> the resources so that they map to the appropriate logical PIO
>>>>> addresses.
>>>>>
>>>>> To avoid enumerating these child devices, we add a check from
>>>>> acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent() as to whether the parent
>>>>> for a device is a member of a known list of "indirect IO" hosts.
>>>>> For now, the HiSilicon LPC host controller ID is added.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>>>
>>> You have my ACK here already.
>>>
>>> Since I've ACKed the [7/10] too, I don't think there's anything more I can
>>> do
>>> about this series and I'm assuming that it will be routed through other
>>> trees.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> Thanks for this.
>>
>> Yes, I am working on getting this whole series routed through another tree.
>> Actually I think 7+8 could go separately since there is no build dependency,
>> but I will try to keep the series together.
>
> I can take the [7-8/10] if you want me to, so please let me know.
>

OK, thanks. Will do.

John

> Thanks!
>
> .
>