From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ESMTP id B7166DDF15 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 23:32:18 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20071008120849.GA32540@localhost.localdomain> References: <20071005174015.GA11016@localhost.localdomain> <20071005174642.GB32145@localhost.localdomain> <47067ADE.9060306@ru.mvista.com> <20071005180553.GA32405@localhost.localdomain> <20071008120849.GA32540@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <8B3EB438-F672-4E13-A29A-3F21D0048CF0@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] [POWERPC] mpc8568mds.dts: fix PCI/PCIe nodes Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 08:32:33 -0500 To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Oct 8, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 03:58:00PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Oct 5, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 09:56:46PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >>>> Hello. >>>> >>>> Anton Vorontsov wrote: >>>> >>>>> Commit 5bece127f0666996ca90772229e00332a34e516c tried to fix >>>>> PCI/PCIe nodes, but actually it broke them even harder. ;-) >>>> >>>> Of course. But shouldn't those be the subnoses of the "soc" >>>> type node? >>> >>> Nope. PCI's ranges = <>; isn't in the SOC address space. >>> >>> Valentine Barshak posted a patch titled "[RFC] [PATCH] PowerPC: >>> Add 64-bit >>> phys addr support to 32-bit pci" that started using >>> of_translate_address() >>> for ranges, and of_translate_address() will not work if PCI >>> placed in the >>> SOC node. Not sure if that patch applied or not, though. >> >> I'm confused, what's the actual issue with PCI that this patch >> addresses? > > Which patch? Valentine's or mine under the subject? Don't know > about the > former, but mine patch is pretty obvious: your commit > 5bece127f0666996ca90772229e00332a34e516c moved PCI nodes out of soc > node, > but you forgot to change regs = <>, thus instead of e000a000/e0008000, > kernel used a000/8000 for accessing PCI ccsr registers. Yeah, I see that bug now. It looks like I wasn't getting my new .dts on the board. Will fixup that issue in my patch. - k