On 08/08/2012 04:03 AM, Jia Hongtao-B38951 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wood Scott-B07421 >> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:25 PM >> To: Li Yang-R58472 >> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Li Yang-R58472; Jia >> Hongtao-B38951 >> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] powerpc/fsl-pci: Unify pci/pcie >> initialization code >> >> On 08/06/2012 11:20 PM, Li Yang wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> >> wrote: >>>> On 08/05/2012 10:07 PM, Jia Hongtao-B38951 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Wood Scott-B07421 >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 12:28 AM >>>>>> To: Jia Hongtao-B38951 >>>>>> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; ga...@kernel.crashing.org; Li >>>>>> Yang- R58472; Wood Scott-B07421 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] powerpc/fsl-pci: Unify pci/pcie >>>>>> initialization code >>>>>> >>>>>> As I explained before, this has to be done globally, not from the >>>>>> probe function, so we can assign a default primary bus if there >> isn't any ISA. >>>>>> There are bugs in the Linux PPC PCI code relating to not having >>>>>> any primary bus. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Scott >>>>> >>>>> In my way of searching ISA you can also assign a default primary bus >>>>> in board specific files. >>>> >>>> That was meant for when the board file had an alternate way of >>>> searching for the primary bus (e.g. look for i8259), not as a >>>> replacement for the mechanism that guarantees there's a primary bus. >>>> >>>> You are causing a regression in the qemu_e500.c platform. >>> >>> Can we fix the qemu device tree to address the problem if we do make >>> it a rule to use the ISA node to indicate the primary bus? >> >> No. There is no ISA, and we're not going to lie and say there is. > > But we can assign a default primary for qemu.
Not in the device tree. What other mechanism do you propose? And why do you want to fix it only for QEMU and not other boards, where things happen to work but not as designed? Kumar, can you speak up here as maintainer so we can stop going back and forth endlessly? >> I really don't understand what the problem is with leaving the primary >> detection code as global. Either fix the bugs so we don't need a primary, >> or accept some "impurity" in the workaround. >> >> -Scott > > Global detection for primary is ok but we think our way is deeper unified. So my way works and "is ok", and your way doesn't work but is theoretically cleaner. > Is there any problem to fix the bugs? If you want to fix them, go ahead. You don't get to rely on the bugs beign fixed until after they're actually fixed. > I really don't understand why we have to need a primary bus. Did you read Ben's e-mail that I posted a link to? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
