diff for duplicates of <1371073826.18413.52@snotra> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 3a5c836..61f1de4 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,29 +1,29 @@ 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 +> > 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 =20 +> > Your patch above should be applied, and fsl_setup_indirect_pcie > should -> > be moved into the booke/86xx ifdef to avoid an unused function =20 +> > be moved into the booke/86xx ifdef to avoid an unused function > 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 +> 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 =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 +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 =20 +In any case, can you send a proper patch with a signoff and commit message? --Scott= +-Scott diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 88b5734..9678da7 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -4,39 +4,39 @@ "Subject\0Re: [BUG] PCI related panic on powerpc based board with 3.10-rcX\0" "Date\0Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:50:26 -0500\0" "To\0Rojhalat Ibrahim <imr@rtschenk.de>\0" - "Cc\0linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" - linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org - " Michael Guntsche <michael.guntsche@it-loops.com>\0" + "Cc\0Michael Guntsche <michael.guntsche@it-loops.com>" + <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org> + " <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On 06/12/2013 03:19:30 AM, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote:\n" "> On Tuesday 11 June 2013 12:28:59 Scott Wood wrote:\n" "> > Yes, I figured it was non-PCIe because the code change that you said\n" - "> > helped was on the non-PCIe branch of the if/else. Generally it's =20\n" + "> > helped was on the non-PCIe branch of the if/else. Generally it's \n" "> good\n" "> > to explicitly mention the chip you're using, though.\n" "> >\n" "> > fsl_setup_indirect_pci should be renamed to fsl_setup_indirect_pcie.\n" - "> > Your patch above should be applied, and fsl_setup_indirect_pcie =20\n" + "> > Your patch above should be applied, and fsl_setup_indirect_pcie \n" "> should\n" - "> > be moved into the booke/86xx ifdef to avoid an unused function =20\n" + "> > be moved into the booke/86xx ifdef to avoid an unused function \n" "> warning.\n" "> >\n" "> > -Scott\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> How about this patch? It uses setup_indirect_pci for the PCI case in\n" - "> mpc83xx_add_bridge. Additionally it adds a check in =20\n" + "> mpc83xx_add_bridge. Additionally it adds a check in \n" "> fsl_setup_indirect_pci\n" "> to only use the modified read function in case of PCIe.\n" "\n" - "If we're adding the check to fsl_setup_indirect_pci, there's no need to =20\n" - "change the 83xx call back to setup_indirect_pci. I see that 85xx is =20\n" - "also callirng fsl_setup_indirect_pci for both; it'd be good to be =20\n" + "If we're adding the check to fsl_setup_indirect_pci, there's no need to \n" + "change the 83xx call back to setup_indirect_pci. I see that 85xx is \n" + "also callirng fsl_setup_indirect_pci for both; it'd be good to be \n" "consistent.\n" "\n" - "In any case, can you send a proper patch with a signoff and commit =20\n" + "In any case, can you send a proper patch with a signoff and commit \n" "message?\n" "\n" - -Scott= + -Scott -2d8b4216578590adcaa2bc7c5aba65dae9d493aa1b45b1f497aa6d9a99e62b66 +6d09ee7c3cf1b923eae61d1c80600bf2f3955489d2455e64d473b06adfc93a4e
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.