From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jcm@redhat.com (Jon Masters) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 00:13:45 -0500 Subject: [Linaro-acpi] ACPI namespace details for ARM64 In-Reply-To: <98c9564d-17f9-f549-6dd4-5c6abc1ba1a3@codeaurora.org> References: <20161109220506.GN14322@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <98c9564d-17f9-f549-6dd4-5c6abc1ba1a3@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <4b5371a5-007e-ad78-054c-9a075ed3ba71@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11/11/2016 09:24 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 11/10/2016 6:18 PM, Al Stone wrote: >> On 11/09/2016 03:05 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> We've been working through the details of getting ACPI to work on >>> arm64, and there have been lots of questions about what this means for >>> PCI. I've outlined this for several people individually, but I'm >>> going to send this separately, apart from a specific patch series, to >>> make sure we're all on the same page. Please correct my errors and >>> misunderstandings. >>> >>> Bjorn >>> >>> [snip....] >> >> A big +1 to all of this. This also looks like something that should >> be added to either PCI, ACPI or arm64 documentation (or even all three). >> What do you think? > > > I agree. In order to have compliant systems, we have to make PNP0C02 required > in the PCIe appendix of the SBSA specification. We're ramping up for a "Constitutional Convention" on the SBBR between a few of the vendors and we'll make sure this is covered. Jon. -- Computer Architect | Sent from my Fedora powered laptop