On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 01:48:36PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>
> On 23/01/2019 19:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > While looking at the s390x implementation, looks like spapr has a
> > similar BUG when building the topology.
> >
> > The primary bus number corresponds always to the bus
On 24.01.19 03:48, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>
> On 23/01/2019 19:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> While looking at the s390x implementation, looks like spapr has a
>> similar BUG when building the topology.
>>
>> The primary bus number corresponds always to the bus number of the
>> bus the br
On 23/01/2019 19:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> While looking at the s390x implementation, looks like spapr has a
> similar BUG when building the topology.
>
> The primary bus number corresponds always to the bus number of the
> bus the bridge is attached to.
>
> Right now, if we have two brid
On 23.01.19 09:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> While looking at the s390x implementation, looks like spapr has a
> similar BUG when building the topology.
>
> The primary bus number corresponds always to the bus number of the
> bus the bridge is attached to.
>
> Right now, if we have two bridges a
While looking at the s390x implementation, looks like spapr has a
similar BUG when building the topology.
The primary bus number corresponds always to the bus number of the
bus the bridge is attached to.
Right now, if we have two bridges attached to the same bus (e.g. root
bus) this is however no
