On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 11:11:18AM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > Hi Fabio, > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Fabio Estevam <feste...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Bin, > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I also see this behavior on ls1021atwr board. I agree with Simon, the > >> correct fix should fix the PCIe driver to return 0 instead of -EINVAL. > > > > Do you mean like this for imx? > > > > Yes > > > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie_imx.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie_imx.c > > @@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ static int imx_pcie_read_config(struct pci_controller > > *hose, > > ret = imx_pcie_addr_valid(d); > > if (ret) { > > *val = 0xffffffff; > > - return ret; > > + return 0; > > } > > > > va_address = get_bus_address(d, where); > > > > and like this for layerscape: > > > > Yes > > > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie_layerscape.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie_layerscape.c > > @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ static int ls_pcie_read_config(struct pci_controller > > *hose, > > > > if (ls_pcie_addr_valid(hose, d)) { > > *val = 0xffffffff; > > - return -EINVAL; > > + return 0; > > } > > > > if (PCI_BUS(d) == hose->first_busno) > > > > Again, I was wondering why we created two drivers for the same (or > similar) PCIe IPs.
Something to consolidate for the next release it sounds like. However we need this fixed this release yes? Can I get a v2 of this patch with a proper commit message? Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot