On 06/03/2016 08:32 AM, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: [...]
+struct pci_ecam_ops *pci_mcfg_get_ops(struct acpi_pci_root *root) +{
- int bus_num = root->secondary.start;
- int domain = root->segment;
- struct pci_cfg_fixup *f;
- if (!mcfg_table)
return &pci_generic_ecam_ops;
- /*
* Match against platform specific quirks and return
corresponding
* CAM ops.
*
* First match against PCI topology <domain:bus> then use OEM ID
and
* OEM revision from MCFG table standard header.
*/
- for (f = __start_acpi_mcfg_fixups; f < __end_acpi_mcfg_fixups;
f++) {
if ((f->domain == domain || f->domain ==
PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY) &&
(f->bus_num == bus_num || f->bus_num ==
PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY) &&
(!strncmp(f->oem_id, mcfg_table->header.oem_id,
ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE)) &&
(f->oem_revision == mcfg_table->header.oem_revision))
Is this more likely to be updated between quirky and fixed platforms than oem_table_id? What do folks think about using oem_table_id instead of, or in addition to, oem_revision?
From my understanding we need to stick to this mechanism as (otherwise) there are platforms out in the field that would need a FW update.
So I don't think that using oem_table_id "instead" is possible; about "in addition" I think it is doable, but I do not see the advantage much. I mean that if a platform gets fixed the oem revision should change too, Right?
I think you are correct. My take away on discussions about using this style of quirk matching was that we would require the oem_revision to change as different quirks (or lack of quirks) were required.
David Daney
Thanks
Gab