On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 20:45 +0300, Robert Berger wrote:
> - mtdcri(SDR0, *sdr_addr, upper_32_bits(res.start)); /*HIGH addr */
> - mtdcri(SDR0, *sdr_addr + 1, lower_32_bits(res.start)); /* Low addr */
> + SDR0_WRITE(sdr_addr, (u64)res.start >> 32); /*HIGH addr */
> + SDR0_WRITE(sdr_addr + 1, res.start & 0xFFFFFFFF); /* Low addr */
> +
>
> msi->msi_dev = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "ppc4xx-msi");
> - if (!msi->msi_dev)
> + if (msi->msi_dev)
> return -ENODEV;
The above changes look bad. The first one is stupid, the second one is clearly
broken.
The diff us from good to bad right ? Looks like somebody added a very busted
patch.
If I look at the code in current upstream, I see:
mtdcri(SDR0, *sdr_addr, upper_32_bits(res.start)); /*HIGH addr */
mtdcri(SDR0, *sdr_addr + 1, lower_32_bits(res.start)); /* Low addr */
msi->msi_dev = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "ppc4xx-msi");
if (!msi->msi_dev)
return -ENODEV;
Which looks correct. So this might be something specific to ELDK ?
Cheers,
Ben.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
