Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754610AbcKUWbv (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:31:51 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:33550 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753308AbcKUWbt (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:31:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:31:45 -0600 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Gabriele Paoloni Cc: "liudongdong (C)" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "rafael@kernel.org" , "Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com" , "tn@semihalf.com" , "Wangzhou (B)" , "pratyush.anand@gmail.com" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "jcm@redhat.com" , "Chenxin (Charles)" , "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , Linuxarm Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] PCI/ACPI: hisi: Add ACPI support for HiSilicon SoCs Host Controllers Message-ID: <20161121223145.GC4832@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> References: <1479460951-49281-1-git-send-email-liudongdong3@huawei.com> <1479460951-49281-3-git-send-email-liudongdong3@huawei.com> <20161118170821.GH25762@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1472 Lines: 34 On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 09:09:28AM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > > > +config PCI_HISI_ACPI > > > + depends on ACPI && ARM64 > > > + bool "HiSilicon Hip05 and Hip06 and Hip07 SoCs ACPI PCIe > > controllers" > > > + select PNP > > > + help > > > + Say Y here if you want ACPI PCIe controller support on > > HiSilicon > > > + Hip05 and Hip06 and Hip07 SoCs > > > > I'm not sure about this Kconfig setup. Do we really want to force > > people to enable a special config option to get this support? > > > > I'm comparing it in my mind with other PCI quirks. They're all > > enabled as a group by CONFIG_PCI_QUIRKS. Ultimately we want an ACPI > > kernel to work without requiring any platform-specific config options. > > > > I'm wondering if we should consolidate all the ECAM quirk code in a > > single place (maybe pci/ecam-quirks.c, pci/ecam.c, or pci/pci-acpi.c), > > under a config option like CONFIG_PCI_ECAM_QUIRKS or maybe even plain > > CONFIG_PCI_QUIRKS (of course, it could still be qualified by > > CONFIG_ACPI and CONFIG_ARM64). > > What about having a single config options but keeping separate files > for each vendors (at least as first step)? That sounds fine. The main thing is that we're trying to build a generic kernel that can run on any ACPI arm64 platform, so we really shouldn't have to turn on platform-specific config options. > Maybe if we see that we can consolidate all the vendors in one file > we can do it as a second step...