Re: [PATCH] powerpc/4xx: Add support for type 1 pci transactions on 4xx boards

[Felix Radensky <felix@embedded-sol.com>]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 10:18 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>   
>> On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 15:09 +0100, Stef van Os wrote:
>>     
>>> This patch adds type 1 PCI transactions to 4xx PCI code, enabling the
>>> discovery of
>>> devices behind a PCI bridge.
>>>       
>> Your patch appears word wrapped and whitespace damaged...
>>
>> I'll fix it up manually this time around but please check your mailer
>> setup :-)
>>     
>
> Allright, it's not quite that.
>
> I've looked at my docs, and it looks like older parts such as the 440EP
> do -not- take the config type in the low bit.
>
> More interestingly, they only generate config 0 cycles if you pass a bus
> number of 0 :-)
>
> So we'll need do do something a little bit different here. We probably
> need to indicate in the device-tree what kind of SoC we have (whether
> it supports the explicit bit to choose between type 0 and type 1 or
> not).
>
> If not, we should then set the "self_busno" field of the bridge to 0,
> causing indirect_pci to always use bus number 0 when trying to talk
> to the bus segment behind the bridge, whatever the linux bus number
> for it actually is.
>
> Now, we need to make a precise list here of what SoC uses what. 460xx
> seem to all support the explicit bit. 440EP doesn't. What else ?
>
> Somebody from AMCC can dbl check that ?
>   

I've checked what platforms take configuration type in the lower bit:

405XX - no
440EP - no
440GR - no
440EPx/440GRx - no

440GP - yes
440GX - yes
440SP - yes
440SPe - yes
460XX - yes

The distinction between these groups is pretty clear in the device trees.
The members of the first group all have "ibm,plb-pci" property, and all
members of second group have "ibm,plb-pcix" property.

So only ppc4xx_probe_pcix_bridge() routine should be fixed.

Felix.