From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jcm@redhat.com (Jon Masters) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 04:24:18 -0400 Subject: [PATCH V7 00/11] Support for generic ACPI based PCI host controller In-Reply-To: References: <1462893601-8937-1-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> <57331290.7070104@semihalf.com> <3d4aae09-51c4-f007-5100-191a4a85e27a@redhat.com> Message-ID: <9a9d2e00-efb4-2607-a410-43af1d3c97c3@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/20/2016 04:11 AM, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > Hi Ard, Jon Hi Gabriele :) > In our case (HiSilicon Hip05/Hip06) we are using the Designware IP > that unfortunately is non-ECAM for the RC config space. Yea, I know, and I've pinged them already. > A possible ACPI table solution was discussed already in this thread > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/14/722 > > where <> > is used to specify an Host Controller specific resource. > It looks to me that this can be an approach that can accommodate > different vendors/scenarios and Bjorn seemed to be quite ok with > it. Yeah, pondering that. We'll chat with a few others about it. > It comes without saying that for future HW releases we all should > make an effort to deliver fully ECAM compliant controllers. Right. Like I said, a number of designs have been fixed already. > What's your view about this approach? Will followup over the weekend. Jon. -- Computer Architect | Sent from my Fedora powered laptop