From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from xceltech.net (mail2.xceltech.net [199.227.119.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9896BDDF00 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:40:21 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <49BE64C9.2000104@pericle.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:40:09 -0600 From: Mark Takatz MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: use generic pci_assign_unassign_resources References: %(message_id_url)s <49BAE147.4060102@pericle.com> <1237161414.25062.105.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1237161414.25062.105.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Robert Wuest Reply-To: Mark Takatz List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hehe, and that opens up an entirely different can of worms with our board. Thanks, however. Mark Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 16:42 -0600, Mark Takatz wrote: > >> Ben, >> >> We're looking at the fixes you put in place for the various PCI errors >> and we think this is the solution we need for our system, a GE Fanuc CM6 >> PPC board (single 8641), but your patches appear to apply either to >> 2.6.24 or 2.6.25, and we have 2.6.23. Do you know of any similar work >> done on the 2.6.23 release? >> >> Thanks in advance for any help you can provide, >> > > No, you would have to backport major chunks of the PCI rework I did in > between, along with fixes I did after that. At this stage I would > recommend considering an update to 2.6.27 or 2.6.28. > > Cheers, > Ben. > > > > -- Mark J. Takatz Pericle Communications Company 1910 Vindicator Drive, Suite 100 Colorado Springs, CO 80919 Office: (719) 548-1170 Cell: (719) 287-5267 Fax: (719) 548-1211 takatz@pericle.com