On 08/09/2016 01:44 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" writes:
On 08/08/2016 09:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" writes:
(i) What is the specific issue? Do you have some logs or at least a
"high-level" description of the problem in Xorg? I took a look
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" writes:
> On 08/08/2016 09:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> "Guilherme G. Piccoli" writes:
>>>
>>> (i) What is the specific issue? Do you have some logs or at least a
>>> "high-level" description of the problem in Xorg? I took a look in its
>>> code and PCI domain is coded
On 08/08/2016 09:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" writes:
On 08/07/2016 08:48 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 04:40:56PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
The recent commit 63a72284b159 ("powerpc/pci: Assign fixed PHB number
based on device-tree properties"),
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" writes:
> On 08/07/2016 08:48 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 04:40:56PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> The recent commit 63a72284b159 ("powerpc/pci: Assign fixed PHB number
>>> based on device-tree properties"), added code to read a 64-bit property
>>>
On 08/07/2016 08:48 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 04:40:56PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
The recent commit 63a72284b159 ("powerpc/pci: Assign fixed PHB number
based on device-tree properties"), added code to read a 64-bit property
from the device tree, and if not found read a
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 04:40:56PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>The recent commit 63a72284b159 ("powerpc/pci: Assign fixed PHB number
>based on device-tree properties"), added code to read a 64-bit property
>from the device tree, and if not found read a 32-bit property (reg).
>
>There was a bug
