From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:20:40 +0100 (BST) Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([IPv6:::ffff:12.44.186.158]:22780 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:20:34 +0100 Received: from mvista.com (prometheus.mvista.com [10.0.0.139]) by hermes.mvista.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CB9185AC; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:20:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <416EFBAB.8050600@mvista.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:20:27 -0700 From: Manish Lachwani User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.2) Gecko/20040308 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Ralf Baechle , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]PCI on SWARM References: <416DE31E.90509@mvista.com> <20041014191754.GB30516@linux-mips.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 6050 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: mlachwani@mvista.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > > >>>This small patch is required to get PCI working on the Broadcom SWARM >>>board in 2.6. Without this patch, the PCI bus scan is skipped due to >>>resource conflict. Tested using the E100 network card >>> >>> >>>- ioport_resource.end = 0x0000ffff; /* 32MB reserved by >>>sb1250 */ >>>+ ioport_resource.end = 0xffffffff; /* 32MB reserved by >>>sb1250 */ >>> >>> >>I'm too lazy to dig up the actual numbers from the BCM1250 manuals but >>it definately does not have 4GB of port address space. >> >> > > The doc states low 25 bits are used for I/O addressing, matching the >comment above (surprise!, surprise!), so I guess the constant sought for >the bit mask above is 0x01ffffff. If that turns out to work, I can apply >an update (can I, Ralf?). > > Maciej > Hello ! Honestly, I dont have the manual to determine the port address space bits. Hence, I set it to this value to MAX (i.e. 0xffffffff). Probably, should have mentioned that when sending the patch. Do you want me to try with this value (0x01ffffff) ? Thanks Manish Lachwani