From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CE31DE10B for ; Wed, 20 May 2009 15:32:02 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Musings on PCI busses From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Grant Likely In-Reply-To: References: <20090519162511.7454D17E8058@mail19-dub.bigfish.com> <1242788522.16901.134.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 15:31:44 +1000 Message-Id: <1242797504.16901.135.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev , Roderick Colenbrander , John Linn List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 21:17 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt > wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 09:25 -0700, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: > > > >> I agree that something is called for... The first might be slightly > >> simpler, since it would probably transparently deal with the presence > >> of more than one PLB->PCI bridge? > > > > The current code doesn't already ? > > Current code doesn't exist in mainline. :-) Well, I was thinking about ppc4xx_pci :-) > And, no, the patch Roderick wrote doesn't handle more than one PHB. > No reason it couldn't though. Right, it shouldn't be hard. Cheers, Ben.