On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 01:48:32PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:22:23 -0400, Jason Cooper <ja...@lakedaemon.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:17:48PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Jason Cooper <ja...@lakedaemon.net> > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:30:06 +0100, Andrew Murray > > > >> <andrew.mur...@arm.com> wrote: > > > >> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:18:26AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote: > > > >> > > The pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges function, used to parse the > > > >> > > "ranges" > > > >> > > property of a PCI host device, is found in both Microblaze and > > > >> > > PowerPC > > > >> > > architectures. These implementations are nearly identical. This > > > >> > > patch > > > >> > > moves this common code to a common place. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.mur...@arm.com> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau <liviu.du...@arm.com> > > > >> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <rob.herr...@calxeda.com> > > > >> > > Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazz...@free-electrons.com> > > > >> > > Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> > > > >> > > Acked-by: Michal Simek <mon...@monstr.eu> > > > >> > > --- > > > >> > > arch/microblaze/include/asm/pci-bridge.h | 5 +- > > > >> > > arch/microblaze/pci/pci-common.c | 192 > > > >> > > ---------------------------- > > > >> > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h | 5 +- > > > >> > > arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c | 192 > > > >> > > ---------------------------- > > > >> > > > > >> > Is there anyone on linuxppc-dev/linux-mips that can help test this > > > >> > patchset? > > > >> > > > > >> > I've tested that it builds on powerpc with a variety of configs > > > >> > (some which > > > >> > include fsl_pci.c implementation). Though I don't have hardware to > > > >> > verify that > > > >> > it works. > > > >> > > > > >> > I haven't tested this builds or runs on MIPS. > > > >> > > > > >> > You shouldn't see any difference in behaviour or new warnings and > > > >> > PCI devices > > > >> > should continue to operate as before. > > > >> > > > >> I've got through a line-by-line comparison between powerpc, microblaze, > > > >> and then new code. The differences are purely cosmetic, so I have > > > >> absolutely no concerns about this patch. I've applied it to my tree. > > > > > > > > oops. Due to the number of dependencies the mvebu-pcie series has (this > > > > being one of them, we (arm-soc/mvebu) asked if we could take this > > > > through our tree. Rob Herring agreed to this several days ago. Is this > > > > a problem for you? > > > > > > > > It would truly (dogs and cats living together) upset the apple cart for > > > > us at this stage to pipe these through a different tree... > > > > > > Not a problem at all. I'll drop it. > > > > Great! Thanks. > > You can add my Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.lik...@linaro.org> to the > first patch. I've not reviewed out the second or third patches yet. > > None of this appears to be in linux-next yet. I've boot tested on > PowerPC, but that isn't the same as an ack by the PowerPC maintainers. > It is probably too late for the whole now since we're after -rc7. > However, if you ask me to, I have absolutely no problem putting the > first patch into my tree for v3.10 merging. I went over the patch > line-by-line and am convinced that it is functionally identical. > > Let me know if you need me to do this.
Thanks for the offer, Olof just pulled the branch last night (my PRs were a little late trying to sort all this out), so it should be in shortly. FYI: 65ee348 of/pci: Unify pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges from Microblaze and PowerPC is in arm-soc/mvebu/drivers as well as arm-soc/next/drivers (and arm-soc/for-next if you want to test merging everything...) thx, Jason. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
