On 2017-03-30 06:09, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

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

quoted

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.

My suggestion is to try to reuse the resources if possible. Otherwise, 
reassign the resources.

There were implementation problems by the time you proposed your patch 
and it was delaying progess. That was my objection.

Now that base pci support is in and everybody is  somewhat happy, let's 
figure out the bugs and get this done.

I am ready to test/debug.