From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify external PCI devices Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:37:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20181115113737.GW2500@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: <20181112160628.86620-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20181112160628.86620-2-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20181112180203.lx72gjfplb6xlur7@wunner.de> <20181113105636.GB11202@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> <20181113112700.GT2500@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20181113114527.GA12821@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> <20181115102239.GU2500@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20181115111356.GA599@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181115111356.GA599-4tUPXFaYRHv6sAKXYmQ0tx/iLCjYCKR+VpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Lorenzo Pieralisi Cc: Ashok Raj , Mario.Limonciello-8PEkshWhKlo@public.gmane.org, Michael Jamet , Christian Kellner , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Yehezkel Bernat , Anthony Wong , Andreas Noever , iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Lukas Wunner , Jacob jun Pan , linux-pci-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Bjorn Helgaas , linux-acpi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, David Woodhouse , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:13:56AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > I have strong objections to the way these bindings have been forced upon > everybody; if that's the way *generic* ACPI bindings are specified I > wonder why there still exists an ACPI specification and related working > group. > > I personally (but that's Bjorn and Rafael choice) think that this is > not a change that belongs in PCI core, ACPI bindings are ill-defined > and device tree bindings are non-existing. Any idea where should I put it then? These systems are already out there and we need to support them one way or another. > At the very least Microsoft should be asked to publish and discuss > these bindings within the ACPI and UEFI forums. These bindings are public, see here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/pci/dsd-for-pcie-root-ports However, they are not part of the ACPI spec as you say.