From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mlangsdo@redhat.com (Mark Langsdorf) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:14:42 -0500 Subject: [PATCH V6 00/13] Support for generic ACPI based PCI host controller In-Reply-To: <5714FC89.8060005@semihalf.com> References: <1460740008-19489-1-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> <5714E224.1030307@semihalf.com> <4253385.YPSgBqNLfg@wuerfel> <5714FC89.8060005@semihalf.com> Message-ID: <571507F2.60005@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/18/2016 10:26 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > On 18.04.2016 16:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Monday 18 April 2016 15:33:24 Tomasz Nowicki wrote: >>> >>> Of course we can split discussion into the two topics: >>> 1. ECAM based ACPI host controller - patches [1-10] >>> 2. Quirks handling and examples. >>> >>> IMO, it is very helpful for reviewers to go with one unified patch set >>> and see the whole picture. Also, as you can see, quirks handling allows >>> people to test it easily with their servers (not only QEMU but real HW). >> >> I think splitting the two would help tremendously. The regular >> PCI support should just get merged (it should have been completed >> years ago when ACPI for ARM64 was first implemented), while the quirks >> handling contains all ugly nonstandard hacks we have to be careful >> about. > > OK, so for those who want to review just "ECAM based ACPI host > controller" lets consider only patches [1-10]. Patches 11-13 are well > isolated and do not affect previous one. Is that ok for this series? As much as I appreciate the idea of splitting the patches and getting something in sooner rather than later, I'm concerned because without quirk handling, this code is effectively useless on 60% or more of available server hardware platforms. If we're going to split the review into two threads, it can't be an excuse to drag out the quirk handling for months. --Mark Langsdorf