From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3AA7CB70.DCF55576@mvista.com> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:12:00 -0700 From: "Mark A. Greer" Reply-To: mgreer@mvista.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Malek Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Sandpoint added to 2_5 tree References: <3AA4293B.8633F08F@mvista.com> <3AA6F769.E9EE5931@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Dan Malek wrote: > "Mark A. Greer" wrote: > > > > For those of you with sandpoints, there has been sandpoint support > > pushed out into the 2_5 tree. It requires the patch at: > > ftp://ftp.mvista.com/pub/Area51/sandpoint/sp_patch_2_5 > > This is a "don't touch yourself", right? Shouldn't this be generally > useful (or required)? Why don't other architectures have this > problem and can we create a generic solution (i.e. we shouldn't have > to hard-code the device number)? Yes, its the "don't touch yourself" problem with 824x & 107 bridges. Most boards don't have the IDSEL wired up so its not an issue for them. I expect more & more people to start wiring it up, though, so I think it will become more of an issue. Yes, there should be some general feature for skipping PCI slots, it just doesn't exist yet. There are 2 places that this skip needs to be put in, drivers/pci/pci.c and arch/ppc/kerner/pci_auto.c. I chose to make a patch instead of cluttering up those files (plus the drivers/pci/pci.c #ifdef would probably never be accepted into kernel.org). Matt Porter has a scheme for doing the skipping (plus other stuff), he just hasn't had the time to do it yet. Mark ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/