On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 21:32 +0000, Edward L Swarthout wrote: > From: Scott Wood: > > On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 03:57 +0000, Zhiqiang Hou wrote: > > > Any comments? > > > > Only that it was submitted too late for the last merge window, and I have > > not > > yet begun processing patches for the next one. If you meant this to be a > > fix > > important enough to go in outside the merge window, it's missing any > > statement > > of what the actual symptoms are. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Zhiqiang Hou [mailto:zhiqiang....@freescale.com] > > > To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; b...@kernel.crashing.org; > > > Subject: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl-pci: Correct the comparison of the LTSSM > > > > > > Only the value PCIE_LTSSM_L0 stands for the link is up, instead of >= > > > PCIE_LTSSM_L0. > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c > > > b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c > > > @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static int fsl_pcie_check_link(struct pci_controller > > > early_read_config_dword(hose, 0, 0, PCIE_LTSSM, > > > - if (val < PCIE_LTSSM_L0) > > > + if (val != PCIE_LTSSM_L0) > > > return 1; > > This patch is incorrect as there are actually two states L0 and L0s > (standby) > that indicate an active link (a LTSSM value of 0x11 or 0x12). > > The next user manual revision should contain this detail.
The next manual of what chip? Are there any non-active states for which the current test does not work? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
