From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:12:15 +0100 (BST) Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([IPv6:::ffff:12.44.186.158]:48116 "EHLO av.mvista.com") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:12:14 +0100 Received: from zeus.mvista.com (av [127.0.0.1]) by av.mvista.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA31796; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:12:09 -0700 Subject: Re: Au1500 PCI autoconfig issues with multiple PCI devices? From: Pete Popov To: baitisj@evolution.com Cc: Jun Sun , Linux MIPS mailing list In-Reply-To: <20030424130459.P10148@luca.pas.lab> References: <20030424114832.O10148@luca.pas.lab> <20030424121140.G28275@mvista.com> <20030424130459.P10148@luca.pas.lab> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: MontaVista Software Message-Id: <1051215131.511.659.camel@zeus.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3 Date: 24 Apr 2003 13:12:11 -0700 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: 2178 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: ppopov@mvista.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips > Here's another question: > What are the goals of the AU1500 PCI auto config? Is it supposed to be a full > implementation, or just enough to work with a PCI card? The reason I ask is > that the DBAu1500 has only one PCI slot, so a simple implementation would > normally suffice. > > Restated: I don't know if the PCI auto config code was designed to work with > all sorts of wacky PCI devices. I don't know if the intention of the code is to > support the single PCI slot present on the DbAu1500 development board, or if it > is supposed to be more flexible (and complicated). The MIPS pci auto should work fine with a single PCI bus and it _should_ be a full implementation. The code was ported from PPC some time ago, but sub busses were not tested. Also, if I remember correctly, we simplified a bit the more complex PPC implementation and maybe you're seeing the result of that :) Pete