Re: [PATCH v17 08/10] ACPI / scan: do not enumerate Indirect IO host children

[John Garry]

On 19/03/2018 10:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:48 AM, John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 19/03/2018 10:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 7:15:57 PM CET John Garry wrote:
> > > > > Through the logical PIO framework systems which otherwise have
> > > > > no IO space access to legacy ISA/LPC devices may access these
> > > > > devices through so-called "indirect IO" method. In this, IO
> > > > > space accesses for non-PCI hosts are redirected to a host
> > > > > LLDD to manually generate the IO space (bus) accesses. Hosts
> > > > > are able to register a region in logical PIO space to map to
> > > > > its bus address range.
> > > > >
> > > > > Indirect IO child devices have an associated host-specific bus
> > > > > address. Special translation is required to map between
> > > > > a logical PIO address for a device and it's host bus address.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since in the ACPI tables the child device IO resources would
> > > > > be the host-specific values, it is required the ACPI scan code
> > > > > should not enumerate these devices, and that this should be
> > > > > the responsibility of the host driver so that it can "fixup"
> > > > > the resources so that they map to the appropriate logical PIO
> > > > > addresses.
> > > > >
> > > > > To avoid enumerating these child devices, we add a check from
> > > > > acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent() as to whether the parent
> > > > > for a device is a member of a known list of "indirect IO" hosts.
> > > > > For now, the HiSilicon LPC host controller ID is added.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > You have my ACK here already.
> > >
> > > Since I've ACKed the [7/10] too, I don't think there's anything more I can
> > > do
> > > about this series and I'm assuming that it will be routed through other
> > > trees.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > Thanks for this.
> >
> > Yes, I am working on getting this whole series routed through another tree.
> > Actually I think 7+8 could go separately since there is no build dependency,
> > but I will try to keep the series together.
>
> I can take the [7-8/10] if you want me to, so please let me know.

OK, thanks. Will do.

John

> Thanks!
>
> .