From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
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 1DA132C00A2
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:38:17 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <1380321480.27811.53.camel@pasglop>
Subject: Re: Please revert 928bea964827d7824b548c1f8e06eccbbc4d0d7d
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:38:00 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CAE9FiQXXvkfTak6oEpUog_RYs_Gwpdji7N5UJ=R11Q61==N97A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1380270519.27811.10.camel@pasglop>
 <CAE9FiQVkW7d7vFx_kPJG-FEvO71SZjZmpR+dnwVm61wkYK=0YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFyDfMdAeaniQwkoeW6F-xd3JxrzGYwtFb6N9+NA6aRCMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1380318405.27811.37.camel@pasglop>
 <CAE9FiQXXvkfTak6oEpUog_RYs_Gwpdji7N5UJ=R11Q61==N97A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
 "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
 linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
 Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 14:54 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> 
> > Wouldn't it be better to simply have pci_enable_device() always set bus
> > master on a bridge? I don't see any case where it makes sense to have
> > an enabled bridge without the master bit set on it...
> 
> Do you mean attached?

So this patch works and fixes the problem. I think it makes the whole
thing more robust and should be applied.

I still don't know why the bridge doesn't get enabled properly without
it yes, tracking it down (the machine in question takes a LONG time to
reboot :-)

Cheers,
Ben.