Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify external PCI devices

[Mika Westerberg]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 01:37:37PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I suppose those are all Thunderbolt, so could be handled by the
> existing ->is_thunderbolt bit?
> 
> It was said in this thread that ->is_external is more generic in
> that it could also be used on PCIe slots, however that use case
> doesn't appear to lend itself to the "plug in while laptop owner
> is getting coffee" attack.  To access PCIe slots on a server you
> normally need access to a data center.  On a desktop, you usually
> have to open the case, by which time the coffee may already have
> been fetched.  So frankly the binding seems a bit over-engineered
> to me and yet another thing that BIOS writers may get wrong.

I would not say it should include PCIe slots but there are other cables
that carry PCIe and I was thinking we could make it to support those as
well.

I have no problem using is_thunderbolt here, though if we don't want to
support non-Thunderbolt external devices this way.

However, the question here is more that where I should put the _DSD
parsing code if it is not suitable to be placed inside PCI/ACPI core as
I've done in this patch? ;-)