On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 05:49 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 11/23/2010 07:44 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> > On 11/22/2010 01:26 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 03:01 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> >>> I have a bit more information on this. I'm pretty sure that the failures
> >>
On 11/23/2010 07:44 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
On 11/22/2010 01:26 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 03:01 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
I have a bit more information on this. I'm pretty sure that the failures
are only happening in my SCSI (SATA actually) code. My board (8347ea)
h
On 11/22/2010 01:26 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 03:01 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
I have a bit more information on this. I'm pretty sure that the failures
are only happening in my SCSI (SATA actually) code. My board (8347ea) has
a PCI bus with a SIL SATA controller.
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 03:01 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> I have a bit more information on this. I'm pretty sure that the failures
> are only happening in my SCSI (SATA actually) code. My board (8347ea) has
> a PCI bus with a SIL SATA controller. This combo works perfectly in 2.6.28.
> In 2.6.32,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:42:46AM -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> In this case, note that PCI device :00:0c.0 is at 0xc000.
> This causes problems because it's a truly stupid device that does
> not work properly at PCI [relative] address 0x. It simply
> does not respond at that addres
On 11/21/2010 10:59 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
On 11/19/2010 02:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 08:42 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
In this case, note that PCI device :00:0c.0 is at 0xc000.
This causes problems because it's a truly stupid device that does
not work pro
On 11/19/2010 02:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 08:42 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
In this case, note that PCI device :00:0c.0 is at 0xc000.
This causes problems because it's a truly stupid device that does
not work properly at PCI [relative] address 0x.
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 08:42 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> In this case, note that PCI device :00:0c.0 is at 0xc000.
> This causes problems because it's a truly stupid device that does
> not work properly at PCI [relative] address 0x. It simply
> does not respond at that address. Pic
I'm upgrading from 2.6.28 to 2.6.32 (yes, I know it's not the latest,
but it's the best I can do at the moment). There seems to have been
a change in how the PCI bus is scanned/assigned which is causing me
some hardware problems. My hardware is FSL MPC8347 and the problem
is likely specific to t
