On 30 March 2017 at 11:05, Lorenzo Pieralisi [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:46:39AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

I'm asking why we don't fix the actual problem in PCIe ARM64 adaptation instead
of working around it by quirks.

I don't see any reason why ACPI ARM64 should carry the burden of legacy systems.

Legacy only applies to DT based systems.

I fully agree with this point: ACPI implies firmware, and so we should
be able to rely on firmware to have initialized the PCIe subsystem by
the time the kernel gets to access it.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/3/458

I don't think the fact that at least one system existed over a year
ago whose UEFI assigned resources incorrectly should prevent us from
being normative in this case.