From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] ACPI namespace details for ARM64 To: Sinan Kaya , Al Stone , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org References: <20161109220506.GN14322@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <98c9564d-17f9-f549-6dd4-5c6abc1ba1a3@codeaurora.org> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Al Stone , Robert Richter , Gabriele Paoloni , Arnd Bergmann , Ard Biesheuvel , linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Don Dutile , Christopher Covington , Tomasz Nowicki From: Jon Masters Message-ID: <4b5371a5-007e-ad78-054c-9a075ed3ba71@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 00:13:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <98c9564d-17f9-f549-6dd4-5c6abc1ba1a3@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-ID: 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