Re: [PATCH 0/1] ppc4xx: Fix PCIe scanning for the 460SX

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 11:51 -0500, Ayman El-Khashab wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 01:40:12PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 11:16 -0700, Tirumala Marri wrote:
> > 
> >  The register above
> > > PECFGn_DLLSTA is actually in the PCIe configuration space so
> > > we would have to map that in to be able to read that
> > > register during the link check.  Is that correct or ok?
> > > [marri] yes, you need to program DCR register access these local PCIE_CFG
> > > registers.
> > 
> > We do I think, tho we might have to re-order some stuff. I'm facing a
> > similar issue with some internal design here, I'm thinking off adding a
> > new hook to the ppc4xx_pciex_hwops for link checking to replace the SDR
> > business.
> 
> That would probably solve the existing problem.  I might be
> remembering it wrong (or reading it wrong) or both.  But I
> thought that the config space was mapped in the setup_hose
> that happens after (and if) the link check finished
> successfully.  

Yes but we already map separately the host part and the generic part of
cfg, so it wouldn't be hard to move one of these around.

> > The interesting question of course is whether that 460SX stuff is the
> > same as what we're using internally :-)
> 
> Not sure how I would know --  But with my eiger kit, I got a
> cd from amcc that had a patched 2.6.30 or something kernel
> in it to support the 460SX.  The pci code was basically
> subverted by adding a "port->link=1" at the very end of the
> link check to always force it to succeed.  

Niiiiiiice .... not. And they didn't even bothered to submit
anything :-(

> However this code
> never appeared in the public git repositories, so I am not
> sure how the 460SX functioned (if it ever did) since the
> link check that is in there now can't work on that SOC.

Yeah odd. Looks like MyAMCC account is no longer working so I can't get
to the docs, at least until I create a new one and get it re-authorized
I suppose.

Anyways, I'll come up with something (or rather Tony Breeds will) some
time next week that does this refactoring and we'll see what's up from
there.

> > > Lastly, what was the reason for forcing the original code to
> > > be GEN-1 speeds?
> > > [marri] Gen-2 need some extra checks compared to Gen-1.
> > > There were not many Gen-2 devices at the time of submission
> > > To test them.
> > 
> > Can we fix that ?
> > 
> 
> I took care of that in my patch.  Basically it let the
> system go to gen-2 speeds and negotiate down.

Ah ok good.

Cheers,
Ben.