[PATCH] [ARM] Kirkwood: Prevent kernel from crashing if PCIe bridge?is present

[dk-arm-linux@gmx.de (Dieter Kiermaier)]

Am Donnerstag 12 November 2009 16:42:49 schrieb Alexander Clouter:
> Dieter Kiermaier <dk-arm-linux@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > [snipped]
> > 
> > static int __init openrd_base_pci_init(void)
> > {
> > +       u32 cpu_config_reg;
> > +       void __iomem *base;
> > +       base = ioremap(0xf1020100, 4);
> >
> Ewwwwwwww. :)
> 
> If you dig through arch/arm/mach-orion5x/include/mach/orion5x.h you 
> should be able to work out that 0xf1020100 is probably best replaced 
> with something like (ORION5X_BRIDGE_PHYS_BASE | 0x100), once you add
> a matching ORION5X_BRIDGE_PHYS_BASE entry alongside the
> ORION5X_BRIDGE_VIRT_BASE[1].  Well, *I* prefer that sort of thing. :)
> 
> > +       if (base)
> > +       {
> > +               cpu_config_reg = readl(base);
> > +               cpu_config_reg &= ~(1 << 2);
> > +               writel(cpu_config_reg, base);
> > +       }
> > +       iounmap(base);
> > +
> >        if (machine_is_openrd_base())
> >                kirkwood_pcie_init();
> > -
> >        return 0;
> >  }
> > subsys_initcall(openrd_base_pci_init);
> >
> As was recently explained to me[2], that code is going to run on *all* 
> kirkword platforms, not just the OpenRD.  I am guessing you want to 
> shove your additional code into a seperate int returning __init function 
> and call it from the machine_is_openrd_base() clause.
> 

If we go on thinking about that - I would prefer place the code - without the magick key ;) - 
in kirkwood_pcie_init()?
It will affect later or sooner more kirkwood boards if people switch form marvell stock u-boot
to mainline u-boot.
What do you think about that?

to [2]:
Hm, is this really right? Why is there a function called openrd_base_pci_init() which is inside a file
called openrd_base-setup.c and this function is called on a sheevaplug?

I couldn't believe that (but to be honest I don't know it!).
The 2 board do still have different machnumbers, right?
I've expected that these machnumbers are to determine
which board / hardware the kernel / u-boot is running.
Isn't this the case?

> Also, if for some strange reason the ioremap() failed, you are going to 
> call iounmap(NULL) so that should probably be moved up a line into the 
> 'if' clause?  However on this one I *think* I have been told in the past 
> it cannot fail so you might be able to remove the 'if' clause 
> altogether.
sounds reasonable

> 
> Cheers
> 
> [1] unsure if at that point can can just jump straight in and tinker with
> 	ORION5X_BRIDGE_VIRT_BASE?
> [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2009-October/002699.html
> 

Dieter