[RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI/PCI: Match PCI config space accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks

[Gabriele Paoloni]

Hi Sinan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sinan Kaya [mailto:okaya at codeaurora.org]
> Sent: 13 June 2016 15:03
> To: Gabriele Paoloni; liudongdong (C); helgaas at kernel.org;
> arnd at arndb.de; will.deacon at arm.com; catalin.marinas at arm.com;
> rafael at kernel.org; hanjun.guo at linaro.org; Lorenzo.Pieralisi at arm.com;
> jchandra at broadcom.com; tn at semihalf.com
> Cc: robert.richter at caviumnetworks.com; mw at semihalf.com;
> Liviu.Dudau at arm.com; ddaney at caviumnetworks.com; Wangyijing;
> Suravee.Suthikulpanit at amd.com; msalter at redhat.com; linux-
> pci at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-
> acpi at vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; linaro-
> acpi at lists.linaro.org; jcm at redhat.com; andrea.gallo at linaro.org;
> dhdang at apm.com; jeremy.linton at arm.com; cov at 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