From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] efifb: avoid reconfiguration of BAR that covers the framebuffer Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:05:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20170330100524.GA22801@red-moon> References: <1490196629-28088-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20170322193111.GA8190@wunner.de> <20170323084819.GA23281@h08.hostsharing.net> <20170323105727.GA2441@red-moon> <466dcd2b-a781-2fe7-6ef0-5a3767c793e0@codeaurora.org> <27f50de3-721e-e8ec-00c8-b7a9d3cff0d6@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Sinan Kaya , Lukas Wunner , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Matt Fleming , Peter Jones , Bjorn Helgaas , Hanjun Guo , Heyi Guo , linux-pci , Yinghai Lu List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:46:39AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: [...] > > I'm asking why we don't fix the actual problem in PCIe ARM64 adaptation instead > > of working around it by quirks. > > > > I don't see any reason why ACPI ARM64 should carry the burden of legacy systems. > > > > Legacy only applies to DT based systems. > > > > I fully agree with this point: ACPI implies firmware, and so we should > be able to rely on firmware to have initialized the PCIe subsystem by > the time the kernel gets to access it. https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/3/458 Lorenzo