Rune Torgersen wrote: > >From: Scott Wood > >Are you using cuImage, or a regular uImage with a device-tree-aware u-boot > > cuImage for now. > > >If the former, try commenting out the call to fixup_pci() in > >arch/powerpc/boot/cuboot-pq2.c and let me know if that changes anything. > > Did that, That made our PCI bus fail completely
Hmm... that suggests that something in u-boot's setup is either incorrect, or (more likely in this case) doesn't match the device tree. Or maybe it's the bus parking/arbiter tweaking at the end that u-boot is missing. > We have our PCI set up to ONE 512MB outbound range doing all three. > (I can see where you'd save on mem usage by doing two) > > I do see a bug tho. > In our case prefetch is 256MB, memio is 128MB. > the calculation for outbound wiondow 1 sets the size to ~(pref+mmio-1). > That only works if the resulting size is a power of 2. Ah. Yes, I was assuming both windows would be the same size. The code should be changed to check that, and if any conditions for setting PCIBRx/PCIMSKx fail, check to see if the firmware-provided values work (and if not, bail without touching anything). > If we comment out the rewrite of the outbound windows, we get PCI to work. > But since our u-boot sets everything up correctly (Including prefecable > memory) we should not need this? or is it rewriting the device tree in > some way? You shouldn't need it... I'd compare the register values u-boot sets with the values the corrected fixup_pci() sets (including the soc regs at the end). Something must be different. There is no device tree re-writing; it tries to program the hardware to match what's in the device tree. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev