Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] of/pci: Unify pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges from Microblaze and PowerPC

[Jason Cooper <jason-NLaQJdtUoK4Be96aLqz0jA@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:30:06 +0100, Andrew Murray <andrew.murray-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:18:26AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > > The pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges function, used to parse the "ranges"
> > > property of a PCI host device, is found in both Microblaze and PowerPC
> > > architectures. These implementations are nearly identical. This patch
> > > moves this common code to a common place.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <Andrew.Murray-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
> > > Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
> > > Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> > > Acked-by: Michal Simek <monstr-pSz03upnqPeHXe+LvDLADg@public.gmane.org>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/microblaze/include/asm/pci-bridge.h |    5 +-
> > >  arch/microblaze/pci/pci-common.c         |  192 ----------------------------
> > >  arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h    |    5 +-
> > >  arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c         |  192 ----------------------------
> > 
> > Is there anyone on linuxppc-dev/linux-mips that can help test this patchset?
> > 
> > I've tested that it builds on powerpc with a variety of configs (some which
> > include fsl_pci.c implementation). Though I don't have hardware to verify that
> > it works.
> > 
> > I haven't tested this builds or runs on MIPS.
> > 
> > You shouldn't see any difference in behaviour or new warnings and PCI devices
> > should continue to operate as before.
> 
> I've got through a line-by-line comparison between powerpc, microblaze,
> and then new code. The differences are purely cosmetic, so I have
> absolutely no concerns about this patch. I've applied it to my tree.

oops.  Due to the number of dependencies the mvebu-pcie series has (this
being one of them, we (arm-soc/mvebu) asked if we could take this
through our tree.  Rob Herring agreed to this several days ago.  Is this
a problem for you?

It would truly (dogs and cats living together) upset the apple cart for
us at this stage to pipe these through a different tree...

thx,

Jason.