From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: w@1wt.eu (Willy Tarreau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 00:04:34 +0200 Subject: Intel I350 mini-PCIe card (igb) on Mirabox (mvebu / Armada 370) In-Reply-To: References: <20140326201243.GA1536@obsidianresearch.com> <20140326214259.GA12330@obsidianresearch.com> <20140327044054.GA22681@obsidianresearch.com> <20140406185833.GI29787@1wt.eu> Message-ID: <20140406220434.GO29787@1wt.eu> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 10:57:40PM +0100, Neil Greatorex wrote: > Good work - I've been doing similar things myself! I can confirm that I > see exactly the same thing with similar printks: Great! A reproduceable bug is always half-resolved :-) > The physical addresses match those given in the lspci -vvv output same here. > (see > https://gist.github.com/ngreatorex/9772195). I don't know enough about > PCIe, the SoC *or* the Intel card to know if these addresses look correct > or even sane! I did wonder if there was some issue due to the fact that > the resources for 01:00.0 and 01:00.1 overlap, but I would guess(!?) that > it's common in hardware that presents multiple devices. My understanding and old memories tell me that's OK. > It is perhaps noteworthy that this is the first access to the hardware for > the 2nd port - i.e. there are no successful accesses, other than to enable > the hardware, which AFAICT is simply accessing registers on the PCIe > controller. Indeed, I forgot to mention that but you're right, enabling only the second function leads to an immediate panic as well. > I've tried playing around with a few things but not discovered > anything even close to useful. Hopefully Thomas will be able to debug > further when he gets the time. Yeah, let's hope we have not opened a can of worms! Willy