lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v17 08/10] ACPI / scan: do not enumerate Indirect IO host children
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:48 AM, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 19/03/2018 10:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 7:15:57 PM CET John Garry wrote:
>>>
>>> > Through the logical PIO framework systems which otherwise have
>>> > no IO space access to legacy ISA/LPC devices may access these
>>> > devices through so-called "indirect IO" method. In this, IO
>>> > space accesses for non-PCI hosts are redirected to a host
>>> > LLDD to manually generate the IO space (bus) accesses. Hosts
>>> > are able to register a region in logical PIO space to map to
>>> > its bus address range.
>>> >
>>> > Indirect IO child devices have an associated host-specific bus
>>> > address. Special translation is required to map between
>>> > a logical PIO address for a device and it's host bus address.
>>> >
>>> > Since in the ACPI tables the child device IO resources would
>>> > be the host-specific values, it is required the ACPI scan code
>>> > should not enumerate these devices, and that this should be
>>> > the responsibility of the host driver so that it can "fixup"
>>> > the resources so that they map to the appropriate logical PIO
>>> > addresses.
>>> >
>>> > To avoid enumerating these child devices, we add a check from
>>> > acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent() as to whether the parent
>>> > for a device is a member of a known list of "indirect IO" hosts.
>>> > For now, the HiSilicon LPC host controller ID is added.
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
>>> > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>>
>> You have my ACK here already.
>>
>> Since I've ACKed the [7/10] too, I don't think there's anything more I can
>> do
>> about this series and I'm assuming that it will be routed through other
>> trees.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> Yes, I am working on getting this whole series routed through another tree.
> Actually I think 7+8 could go separately since there is no build dependency,
> but I will try to keep the series together.

I can take the [7-8/10] if you want me to, so please let me know.

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-19 11:57    [W:0.118 / U:0.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site