All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Rojhalat Ibrahim <imr@rtschenk.de>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Michael Guntsche <michael.guntsche@it-loops.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] PCI related panic on powerpc based board with 3.10-rcX
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:50:26 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1371073826.18413.52@snotra> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <34279395.MbRViMjbAR@pcimr> (from imr@rtschenk.de on Wed Jun 12 03:19:30 2013)

On 06/12/2013 03:19:30 AM, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 June 2013 12:28:59 Scott Wood wrote:
> > Yes, I figured it was non-PCIe because the code change that you said
> > helped was on the non-PCIe branch of the if/else.  Generally it's =20
> good
> > to explicitly mention the chip you're using, though.
> >
> > fsl_setup_indirect_pci should be renamed to fsl_setup_indirect_pcie.
> > Your patch above should be applied, and fsl_setup_indirect_pcie =20
> should
> > be moved into the booke/86xx ifdef to avoid an unused function =20
> warning.
> >
> > -Scott
>=20
> How about this patch? It uses setup_indirect_pci for the PCI case in
> mpc83xx_add_bridge. Additionally it adds a check in =20
> fsl_setup_indirect_pci
> to only use the modified read function in case of PCIe.

If we're adding the check to fsl_setup_indirect_pci, there's no need to =20
change the 83xx call back to setup_indirect_pci.  I see that 85xx is =20
also callirng fsl_setup_indirect_pci for both; it'd be good to be =20
consistent.

In any case, can you send a proper patch with a signoff and commit =20
message?

-Scott=

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Rojhalat Ibrahim <imr@rtschenk.de>
Cc: Michael Guntsche <michael.guntsche@it-loops.com>,
	<linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] PCI related panic on powerpc based board with 3.10-rcX
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:50:26 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1371073826.18413.52@snotra> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <34279395.MbRViMjbAR@pcimr> (from imr@rtschenk.de on Wed Jun 12 03:19:30 2013)

On 06/12/2013 03:19:30 AM, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 June 2013 12:28:59 Scott Wood wrote:
> > Yes, I figured it was non-PCIe because the code change that you said
> > helped was on the non-PCIe branch of the if/else.  Generally it's  
> good
> > to explicitly mention the chip you're using, though.
> >
> > fsl_setup_indirect_pci should be renamed to fsl_setup_indirect_pcie.
> > Your patch above should be applied, and fsl_setup_indirect_pcie  
> should
> > be moved into the booke/86xx ifdef to avoid an unused function  
> warning.
> >
> > -Scott
> 
> How about this patch? It uses setup_indirect_pci for the PCI case in
> mpc83xx_add_bridge. Additionally it adds a check in  
> fsl_setup_indirect_pci
> to only use the modified read function in case of PCIe.

If we're adding the check to fsl_setup_indirect_pci, there's no need to  
change the 83xx call back to setup_indirect_pci.  I see that 85xx is  
also callirng fsl_setup_indirect_pci for both; it'd be good to be  
consistent.

In any case, can you send a proper patch with a signoff and commit  
message?

-Scott

  reply	other threads:[~2013-06-12 21:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-08 19:39 [BUG] PCI related panic on powerpc based board with 3.10-rcX Michael Guntsche
2013-06-08 19:39 ` Michael Guntsche
2013-06-10 11:41 ` Rojhalat Ibrahim
2013-06-10 11:41   ` Rojhalat Ibrahim
2013-06-10 17:07   ` Michael Guntsche
2013-06-10 17:07     ` Michael Guntsche
2013-06-10 22:52     ` Scott Wood
2013-06-10 22:52       ` Scott Wood
2013-06-11  7:24       ` Rojhalat Ibrahim
2013-06-11 17:00         ` Scott Wood
2013-06-11 17:00           ` Scott Wood
2013-06-11 17:09           ` Michael Guntsche
2013-06-11 17:09             ` Michael Guntsche
2013-06-11 17:28             ` Scott Wood
2013-06-11 17:28               ` Scott Wood
2013-06-12  8:19               ` Rojhalat Ibrahim
2013-06-12  8:19                 ` Rojhalat Ibrahim
2013-06-12 21:50                 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2013-06-12 21:50                   ` Scott Wood
2013-06-13  7:21                   ` Rojhalat Ibrahim
2013-06-13  7:21                     ` Rojhalat Ibrahim
2013-06-13 16:49                     ` Scott Wood
2013-06-13 16:49                       ` Scott Wood
2013-06-14  7:55                       ` Rojhalat Ibrahim
2013-06-14  7:55                         ` Rojhalat Ibrahim
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-06-08 17:35 Michael Guntsche
2013-06-08 17:30 Michael Guntsche

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1371073826.18413.52@snotra \
    --to=scottwood@freescale.com \
    --cc=imr@rtschenk.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=michael.guntsche@it-loops.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.