From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Tyser Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:23:20 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 08/15] powerpc/8xxx: Rework XES boards pci_init_board to use common FSL PCIe code In-Reply-To: <3C1FE744-55B8-4C94-9FB3-50C98C7969D1@kernel.crashing.org> References: <1292629858-10233-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> <1292629858-10233-2-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> <1292629858-10233-3-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> <1292629858-10233-4-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> <1292629858-10233-5-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> <1292629858-10233-6-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> <1292629858-10233-7-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> <1292629858-10233-8-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> <1292863744.21776.10.camel@petert> <3C1FE744-55B8-4C94-9FB3-50C98C7969D1@kernel.crashing.org> Message-ID: <1292963000.21776.52.camel@petert> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 11:49 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > On Dec 20, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Peter Tyser wrote: > > > Thanks for the cleanup. What branch should this series be applied to? > > And are there prerequisites? I'm having issues applying them to test > > and review. Any direction on how these should be applied for testing? > >> --- a/board/xes/common/fsl_8xxx_pci.c > >> +++ b/board/xes/common/fsl_8xxx_pci.c > >> @@ -34,15 +34,6 @@ > >> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI1 > >> static struct pci_controller pci1_hose; > >> #endif > > > > Is there a reason PCI1 wasn't changed over too? I see pci1_hose is > > still referenced below, but other boards with a PCI1 don't use similar > > code. > > I was trying to limit how much clean up I did so left this to just PCIe interfaces. Normal PCI and PCI-X is something I might get around to but one thing at a time Ah, OK. If we're removing the LAW entries for PCI1 in law.c below, how is a LAW being set for PCI1? It looks like PCIe laws are set in fsl_configure_pcie(), and PCI LAWs are set via set_next_law() in board-specific code? I'm not seeing the call to set_next_law() in X-ES board specific code after this change though. Best, Peter > > > > > >> diff --git a/board/xes/xpedite520x/law.c b/board/xes/xpedite520x/law.c > >> index bbfcb9d..3afb3ae 100644 > >> --- a/board/xes/xpedite520x/law.c > >> +++ b/board/xes/xpedite520x/law.c > >> @@ -38,10 +38,6 @@ struct law_entry law_table[] = { > >> /* LBC window - maps 256M 0xf0000000 -> 0xffffffff */ > >> SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_FLASH_BASE2, LAW_SIZE_256M, LAW_TRGT_IF_LBC), > >> SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE, LAW_SIZE_1M, LAW_TRGT_IF_LBC), > >> -#if CONFIG_SYS_PCI1_MEM_PHYS > >> - SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_PCI1_MEM_PHYS, LAW_SIZE_1G, LAW_TRGT_IF_PCI_1), > >> - SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_PCI1_IO_PHYS, LAW_SIZE_8M, LAW_TRGT_IF_PCI_1), > >> -#endif > >> #if CONFIG_SYS_PCI2_MEM_PHYS > >> SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_PCI2_MEM_PHYS, LAW_SIZE_256M, LAW_TRGT_IF_PCI_2), > >> SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_PCI2_IO_PHYS, LAW_SIZE_8M, LAW_TRGT_IF_PCI_2),