On Oct 8, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > 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.
Yeah, I see that bug now. It looks like I wasn't getting my new .dts on the board. Will fixup that issue in my patch. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
