From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756459AbZEER6A (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 13:58:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753832AbZEER5u (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 13:57:50 -0400 Received: from outbound-mail-141.bluehost.com ([67.222.38.31]:54851 "HELO outbound-mail-141.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753151AbZEER5t (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 13:57:49 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=BC9N3/QxNo+A7Qd07XxDMjfkHy/Mm9rjKFQMs5TPAWO59UKZi/0b0lOnrC717XHeHU5dTss/N8zUoZQC/41GzbXbsrdUKRQ8A/pV2Zs6jef+TzprBfWLKwz5ePrVLOLl; Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:57:44 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Ed Swierk Cc: Ingo Molnar , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] PCI mmconfig without ACPI Message-ID: <20090505105744.4268e341@hobbes> In-Reply-To: <1234812741.28801.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1233766786.16414.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090204181738.GA16174@elte.hu> <1234812741.28801.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.111.28.251 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:32:21 -0800 Ed Swierk wrote: > Here's another attempt at decoupling the setup of memory-mapped PCI > configuration space from ACPI. I implemented your suggestions for > moving the ACPI-specific code to a separate file. I left the > definition of struct acpi_mcfg_allocation alone, and created a new > struct pci_mcfg_allocation. The former is now used only for parsing > the actual ACPI MCFG table, while the latter is used to store > information about mmcfg regions regardless of where they came from. > > (This is still an RFC; the code is pretty much untested.) > I'm still a bit dubious about this; does it solve a real issue? Or just remove the ACPI dependency for its own sake? -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center