On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 08:53:46AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Jason Gunthorpe, > > On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:20:40 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > OK I just got it by adding two printk() in pci-mvebu.c. Both functions > > > mvebu_pcie_handle_iobase_change() and mvebu_pcie_handle_membase_change() > > > do pass a size which is in fact a mask (size - 1) and not the real size. > > > So the mbus is fed with an incorrect size which is off by one : > > > > Yes, that is right. I tested my patch here and didn't see any problem, > > but I realize now that the mbus code is bailing early due to this: > > > > kernel: mvebu_mbus: cannot add window '4:e8', conflicts with another window > > > > Which I've never got around to fixing.. (whole other story there) > > > > Your patch looks fine, and it obviously needs to be sequenced before > > mine. (Thomas/Jason C: how do you want to do this?) > > What I can propose is that I accumulate in a branch all the patches > needed to solve the various PCIe/Mbus problems we've identified: > > * Your patch adding warnings to the mvebu-mbus driver > * Willy's patch fixing the off-by-one on the size > * Neil's patch fixing the MSI teardown function > * My two patches fixing the rest of the MSI logic > * And patches to come for the link problem, and the cutting of > non-power-of-two BARs into power-of-two windows > > This way, everybody will be able to test than in his specific > hardware situations, the patches are solving all the problems. Then I > can take care of formally submitting those patches to the relevant > maintainers, of course keeping the authorship as appropriate. > > How does that sound?
Great! Please do. thx, Jason. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/