Hi Sinan
-----Original Message----- From: Sinan Kaya [mailto:okaya@codeaurora.org] Sent: 13 June 2016 15:03 To: Gabriele Paoloni; liudongdong (C); helgaas@kernel.org; arnd@arndb.de; will.deacon@arm.com; catalin.marinas@arm.com; rafael@kernel.org; hanjun.guo@linaro.org; Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com; jchandra@broadcom.com; tn@semihalf.com Cc: robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com; mw@semihalf.com; Liviu.Dudau@arm.com; ddaney@caviumnetworks.com; Wangyijing; Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com; msalter@redhat.com; linux- pci@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux- acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linaro- acpi@lists.linaro.org; jcm@redhat.com; andrea.gallo@linaro.org; dhdang@apm.com; jeremy.linton@arm.com; cov@codeaurora.org; Chenxin (Charles); Linuxarm Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI/PCI: Match PCI config space accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks
On 6/13/2016 9:54 AM, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
As you can see here Liudongdong has replaced oem_revision with oem_table_id.
Now it seems that there are some platforms that have already shipped using a matching based on the oem_revision (right Jon?)
However I guess that if in FW they have defined oem_table_id properly they should be able to use this mechanism without needing to a FW
update.
Can these vendors confirm this?
Tomasz do you think this can work for Cavium Thunder?
Thanks
Gab
Why not have all three of them?
The initial approach was OEM id and revision id.
Jeff Hugo indicated that addition (not removing any other fields) of table id would make more sense.
Mmm from last email of Jeff Hugo on "[RFC PATCH 1/3] pci, acpi: Match PCI config space accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks."
I quote:
"Using the OEM revision field does not seem to be appropriate since these are different platforms and the revision field appears to be for the purpose of tracking differences within a single platform. Therefore, Cov is proposing using the OEM table id as a mechanism to distinguish platform A (needs quirk applied) vs platform B (no quirks) from the same OEM."
So it looks to me that he pointed out that using the OEM revision field is wrong...and this is why I have asked if replacing it with the table id can work for other vendors....
Thanks
Gab
-- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project