From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vega.surpasshosting.com (vega.surpasshosting.com [72.29.83.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC495B7C09 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:49:08 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <4B4B1027.4020708@embedded-sol.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:48:55 +0200 From: Felix Radensky MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stef van Os Subject: Re: PCI-PCI bridge scanning broken on 460EX References: <4B388D9D.7010404@embedded-sol.com><1262584539.2173.335.camel@pasglop> <4B41ADF1.1000400@embedded-sol.com><4B49CE8A.7000609@embedded-sol.com> <1263155906.724.2.camel@pasglop><4B4A4307.5050704@embedded-sol.com> <1263159117.724.15.camel@pasglop> <4CD35CD1F8085945B597F80EEC89421303B8AD0C@exc01.bk.prodrive.nl> In-Reply-To: <4CD35CD1F8085945B597F80EEC89421303B8AD0C@exc01.bk.prodrive.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Stefan Roese , Feng Kan , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Stef, Stef van Os wrote: > Hello Felix, > > I had a problem similar to this on the 440GX, the PCI code was not > sending type 1 transactions when scanning behind bridges. Perhaps you > could try this: > > Index: linux/arch/powerpc/sysdev/ppc4xx_pci.c > =================================================================== > --- linux/arch/powerpc/sysdev/ppc4xx_pci.c (revision 26) > +++ linux/arch/powerpc/sysdev/ppc4xx_pci.c (revision 27) > @@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ > hose->last_busno = bus_range ? bus_range[1] : 0xff; > > /* Setup config space */ > - setup_indirect_pci(hose, rsrc_cfg.start, rsrc_cfg.start + 0x4, > 0); > + setup_indirect_pci(hose, rsrc_cfg.start, rsrc_cfg.start + 0x4, > PPC_INDIRECT_TYPE_SET_CFG_TYPE); > > /* Disable all windows */ > writel(0, reg + PCIX0_POM0SA); > > > > With kind regards / Met vriendelijke groet, > > Stef van Os > > Prodrive B.V. > > > I think you patch is a valid one, and should be applied, but unfortunately it doesn't fix by problem. BTW, in u-boot transaction type bit is set correctly. Felix.