From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:12:17 +0000
Subject: [PATCH V2 22/23] pci, acpi: Match PCI config space accessors
 against platfrom specific quirks.
In-Reply-To: <20160108150137.GH3097@leverpostej>
References: <1450278993-12664-1-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com>
 <1450278993-12664-23-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com>
 <1452262581.31901.26.camel@redhat.com>
 <20160108150137.GH3097@leverpostej>
Message-ID: <20160108151216.GJ3097@leverpostej>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 03:01:37PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:16:21AM -0500, Mark Salter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 16:16 +0100, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > > example:
> > > 
> > > static const struct dmi_system_id yyy[] = {
> > > ????????{
> > > ????????????????.ident = "<Platform ident string>",
> > > ????????????????.callback = <handler>,
> > > ????????????????.matches = {
> > > ????????????????????????DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "<system vendor>"),
> > > ????????????????????????DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "<product name>"),
> > > ????????????????????????DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION, "product version"),
> > > ????????????????},
> > > ????????},
> > > ????????{ }
> > > };
> > > 
> > 
> > This seems awkward to me in the case where the quirk is SoC-based and there
> > may be multiple platforms affected. Needing a DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP for
> > each platform using such a SoC (i.e. Mustang and Moonshot) doesn't seem
> > right. In that case, I think it'd be better to check CPUID and possibly
> > some SoC register to cover all platforms affected.
> 
> CPUs get reused across SoCs, so as you've implicitly noted, the CPUID
> alone is insufficient.
> 
> Given that IP blocks get moved around between SoC variants, I don't
> think you can check "some SoC register" based on the CPU ID -- you can
> end up bringing the board down at that point.
> 
> If the CPU ID alone is insufficient to tell you about a component, it
> cannot give you enough information about a component you can use to
> query more information from.
> 
> If your platform requires a quirk, it's always going to be painful (and
> to some extent, rightfulyl so). We should aim for correctness here with
> explicit matching.

Further, if there is going to be an ever-expanding set of platforms
requring quirks, then we need a standard mechanism in ACPI to enable the
platform to tell us explicitly either which specific PCI implementation
is used, or which common quirk is necessary.

Thanks,
Mark.