Re: [PATCH 2.6.12-rc2] Freescale 8272ADS PCI bridge support to thestock linux-2.5 (updated)

[Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@freescale.com>]

On Apr 21, 2005, at 12:32 PM, Vitaly Bordug wrote:

>  Rune Torgersen wrote:
>         From: Vitaly Bordug [ mailto:vbordug@ru.mvista.com ]
>         Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:29
>
>
>         This is all right. The only thing I still don't understand -
> how this stuff work without PCI IRQ (don't know much about 8266
>
> though).
>
> On my 8272 only one IRQ is produced and it should be demux'ed in order
> for PCI devices to work. I agree that the siumcr stuff would better
>
> reside
>
> in the firmware, and I have submitted related patch to the =
u-boot-users
>
>
> list, but I have no idea whether it would be accepted or not
>
> (Wolfgang?).
>
> Ah.. That. I have that in a board specific file. Looks excactly like=20=

> the
> implementation you have (for the 8266 port) For our internal board, it
> is quite different, so it should probably be in a board specific file
> (eg platforms/board_pci_setup.h)
>
>
>         The main point I actually dislike in the current m8260
>
> implementation
>
> is that it adds defines for the PCI memory map while it exists
> (and already included) in platforms/pq2ads.h. The memory maps are
> nearly the same so we should decide which one will remain.
>
> I think I like the _LOWER/_UPPER/OFFSET variant. And it need to be
> possible to override it in board-files.
> I'll work in getting the 8266 PCI support I have to be integrated into
> the PQ2[F]ADS board support.
>
>
>  Great. Than I'll replace PCI_MSTR_* with _LOWER/_UPPER/OFFSET stuff=20=

> in the board-specific file so that it override m8260_pci.h defines.=A0=20=

> Another issue - I want to keep the setup of the second outbound PCI=20
> window (pcimask1/pcibr1) - since continuous mem/mmio/io is not=20
> flexible enough - and to keep potarx/pobarx/pocmrx assignments as they=20=

> are in pq_... version (changing of course all relative constants to=20
> _LOWER/... stuff).
>
>  Maybe the m8260.[c,h] should be renamed since this suites not only=20
> 826x series?
>
> Comments/objections?

Renaming is fine by me, however I think currently there is an=20
understanding that all *8260* is applicable to all PQ2 family products.

- kumar