Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v17 08/10] ACPI / scan: do not enumerate Indirect IO host children | From | John Garry <> | Date | Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:13:07 +0000 |
| |
On 19/03/2018 10:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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. >
OK, thanks. Will do.
John
> Thanks! > > . >
| |