Hello Kumar, On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:58:00 -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? > >From what I can see, move of the PCI node out of the SoC node, inspired by the >recent flame talk about it :) I guess pretty soon, we'll have "proper" ranges parsing for pci, that does of_translate_address() and requires either tuned-up parent ranges, or residing outside of the SoC node, this is the reason... > - k > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev -- Sincerely, Vitaly _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
