Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <8003272.NyiUUSuA9g@kreacher> <1798761.CQOukoFCf9@kreacher>
 <CAHp75VdoFwH2sQT6dwz4BCorkgJgmYEBHq-+YpT18HZx2cpmrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJZ5v0iRviZkLzRP0t2f4q5oY9y6CxRotDnyBVBt-QBt-uYReQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iRviZkLzRP0t2f4q5oY9y6CxRotDnyBVBt-QBt-uYReQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:16:17 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdE3gNXy+p=8iyqyY0Ja+AHjv6zFEGwWJSXQwz+A0X1TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] PCI: PM: x86: Drop Intel MID PCI PM support
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        x86 Maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 1:57 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 10:32 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 9:01 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:

...

> > > I am going to post patches removing the rest of MID support from arch/x86/
> > > and elsewhere, but that is still quite a bit of stuff and I don't want this
> > > simple PCI PM series to depend on that work.
> >
> > This is still being used by MID with ACPI assisted (*) support.
> > Hence, not ack.
> >
> > *) ACPI layer is provided by U-Boot and can't fulfill all possible
> > features that ACPI may use in the Linux kernel.
>
> OK, good to know.
>
> I'm not sure how this PCI PM stuff works with ACPI.

It doesn't that is the point. The PCI is very interesting there and
what I meant is that the ACPI implementation I have provided via
U-Boot does not cover these. If you have any hints/ideas how it may be
handled, I am all ears!

> It looks like
> this relies on a specific ordering of arch_initcall() calls for
> correctness which is sort of fragile.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko