Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:37:37 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
        Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@gmail.com>,
        Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@intel.com>,
        Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@gmail.com>,
        Christian Kellner <ckellner@redhat.com>,
        Mario.Limonciello@dell.com,
        Anthony Wong <anthony.wong@canonical.com>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify external PCI devices
Message-ID: <20181115113737.GW2500@lahna.fi.intel.com>
References: <20181112160628.86620-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <20181112160628.86620-2-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <20181112180203.lx72gjfplb6xlur7@wunner.de>
 <20181113105636.GB11202@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20181113112700.GT2500@lahna.fi.intel.com>
 <20181113114527.GA12821@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20181115102239.GU2500@lahna.fi.intel.com>
 <20181115111356.GA599@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181115111356.GA599@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:13:56AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> I have strong objections to the way these bindings have been forced upon
> everybody; if that's the way *generic* ACPI bindings are specified I
> wonder why there still exists an ACPI specification and related working
> group.
> 
> I personally (but that's Bjorn and Rafael choice) think that this is
> not a change that belongs in PCI core, ACPI bindings are ill-defined
> and device tree bindings are non-existing.

Any idea where should I put it then? These systems are already out there
and we need to support them one way or another.

> At the very least Microsoft should be asked to publish and discuss
> these bindings within the ACPI and UEFI forums.

These bindings are public, see here:

  https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/pci/dsd-for-pcie-root-ports

However, they are not part of the ACPI spec as you say.