On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 March 2013 14:07:16 Kumar Gala wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c
>> index 41bbcc4..b18c377 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c
>> @@ -74,6 +74,35 @@ static int __init fsl_pcie_check_link(struct
>> pci_controller *hose) return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int fsl_indirect_read_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int
>> devfn, + int offset, int len, u32 *val)
>> +{
>> + struct pci_controller *hose = pci_bus_to_host(bus);
>> +
>> + /* check the link status */
>> + if ((bus->number == hose->first_busno) && (devfn == 0)) {
>> + if (fsl_pcie_check_link(hose))
>> + hose->indirect_type |= PPC_INDIRECT_TYPE_NO_PCIE_LINK;
>> + else
>> + hose->indirect_type &= ~PPC_INDIRECT_TYPE_NO_PCIE_LINK;
>> + }
>> + return indirect_read_config(bus, devfn, offset, len, val);
>> +}
>> +
>
> This does not work because fsl_indirect_read_config calls fsl_pcie_check_link
> which calls early_read_config_dword which eventually calls
> fsl_indirect_read_config, so the kernel hangs in a recursion loop. Below is a
> modified patch that does work.
ok, that makes sense, but I guess now its making me question the following
statement:
> if ((bus->number == hose->first_busno) && (devfn == 0)) {
Why do we have this conditional?
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
