On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 03:58:00PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 09:56:46PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >>> Hello. >>> >>> Anton Vorontsov wrote: >>> >>>> Commit 5bece127f0666996ca90772229e00332a34e516c tried to fix >>>> PCI/PCIe nodes, but actually it broke them even harder. ;-) >>> >>> Of course. But shouldn't those be the subnoses of the "soc" type node? >> >> Nope. PCI's ranges = <>; isn't in the SOC address space. >> >> Valentine Barshak posted a patch titled "[RFC] [PATCH] PowerPC: Add 64-bit >> phys addr support to 32-bit pci" that started using of_translate_address() >> for ranges, and of_translate_address() will not work if PCI placed in the >> SOC node. Not sure if that patch applied or not, though. > > I'm confused, what's the actual issue with PCI that this patch addresses?
Which patch? Valentine's or mine under the subject? Don't know about the former, but mine patch is pretty obvious: your commit 5bece127f0666996ca90772229e00332a34e516c moved PCI nodes out of soc node, but you forgot to change regs = <>, thus instead of e000a000/e0008000, kernel used a000/8000 for accessing PCI ccsr registers. -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] backup email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev