lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/3] platform/x86: Add Intel Input Output Manager (IOM) driver
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 03:20:22PM +0000, Mani, Rajmohan wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] platform/x86: Add Intel Input Output Manager
> > (IOM) driver
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 09:43:59AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > I still find this crazy that a whole separate driver is created just
> > > to read a single 32bit value.
> > >
> > > Why not put this logic in the driver that wants to read that value?
> > > That would be much simpler, smaller, and more obvious.
> >
> > That would mean that we start maintaining something like DMI quirk table in
> > those drivers. Unfortunately the IOM device is not available on every platform.
> > Also, even on platforms that do have it, there is no guarantee that the device is
> > always going to be mapped to the same address.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I was originally hoping that we could hide the handling of IOM
> > somehow in ACPI without the need for an actual device object, but it now
> > turns out that the other features of the IOM chip have created interest. At
> > least our i915 guys probable have some use for it (I don't know exactly what
> > they are planning to use it for).
> >
> > So the fact that we may later need the device for something else, on top of the
> > clumsiness and most importantly risks involved with using ACPI to take care of
> > extra tasks (ASL tends to have bugs - bugs that may never ever get fixed), I
> > think the IOM device object, and the driver that binds to it, do have a valid
> > reason for existing.
> >
>
> Intel PMC USB mux device is part of the PCH, while IOM is part of the SoC.

I have no idea what a "PCH" is, what "IOM" is, and how any of this
relates to a "SoC" :)

Don't impose arbritrary hardware "splits" to kernel code when the kernel
has no such "partitioning" please.

> This was another reason we had to have a separate ACPI device.

That sounds like a firmware issue you can solve in UEFI.

I think this is the most TLA-laden email I have ever written, and I used
to work at IBM :)

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-29 08:28    [W:0.165 / U:1.720 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site