Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754040AbcDMVSO (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:18:14 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:40252 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753543AbcDMVSM (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:18:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/7] ARM64, ACPI, PCI: I/O Remapping Table (IORT) initial support. To: Marc Zyngier , Tomasz Nowicki , tglx@linutronix.de, jason@lakedaemon.net, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com, shijie.huang@arm.com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com, hanjun.guo@linaro.org References: <1459759975-24097-1-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> <1459759975-24097-5-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> <570E645A.9010600@arm.com> <570E6794.4080409@semihalf.com> <570E6B2C.3060700@arm.com> Cc: al.stone@linaro.org, mw@semihalf.com, graeme.gregory@linaro.org, Catalin.Marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ddaney.cavm@gmail.com From: Sinan Kaya Message-ID: <570EB78E.4060705@codeaurora.org> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:18:06 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <570E6B2C.3060700@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1125 Lines: 24 On 4/13/2016 11:52 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> > Sure. Please see: >> > http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0049a/DEN0049A_IO_Remapping_Table.pdf >> > 3.1.1.5 PCI root complex node >> > PCI Segment number -> The PCI segment number, as in MCFG and as >> > returned by _SEG in the namespace. >> > >> > So IORT spec states that pci_segment_number corresponds to the segment >> > number from MCFG table and _SEG method. Here is my patch which makes >> > sure pci_domain_nr(bus) is set properly: >> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/16/418 > Lovely. So this series is actually dependent on the PCI one. I guess we > need to solve that one first, because IORT seems pretty pointless if we > don't have PCI support. What's the plan? Would it be OK to split the PCI specific section of the patch and continue review? PCI is a user of the IORT table. Not the other way around. We shouldn't need a two way dependency. -- 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