From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e34.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAEADDE49 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:22:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lB34MVwb009634 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:22:31 -0500 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id lB34MUT4123588 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:22:30 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB34MUf7022909 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:22:30 -0700 Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 22:20:22 -0600 From: Josh Boyer To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] powerpc: 4xx PCI, PCI-X and PCI-Express support among others Message-ID: <20071202222022.45839409@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1196652270.13230.192.camel@pasglop> References: <1196403038.569525.367459803520.qpush@grosgo> <20071130141756.3aa3d38b@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1196652270.13230.192.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:24:30 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 14:17 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > Some of these patches are _NOT_ yet candidate for merging > > > (mostly the board support ones), but you can review them and > > > Josh can put them in an experimental tree. > > > > I've added these to the 2.6.25-candidates branch in my tree. Fixed up > > the few conflicts manually. I'll expect refreshes before merging > > anyway, but I'd like to get these out there for people to play with. > > BTW. You were telling me the other day about a problem with the clock > code. > > It looks like the problem is a subtle difference between 440EP /440EPx > and 440SPe / 440GX. The former has the EBC clock derived from the PLB > clock while the later has it derived from OPB... yuck. Yes. > I'm fixing that. Ok. josh