On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 05:36 -0800, Russell McGuire wrote: > Well I am getting smarter on this: > > I have read through the PCI Bridge Specs and found another issue that might > have been causing a problem with the IDSEL lines. Unless you are interested > I'll forgo that explanation and just go with fact that I have changed the > IDSEL mappings to be legal when they are issued from the 83xx. > > I have changed the IDSELs to be as follows, does this look correct? > I agree with placing the NODE for the bridge into the dts file to be > correct. Except I get stuck immediately at trying to come up with an > address. I.e. the PCI host has a [EMAIL PROTECTED], which makes sense. But > the Bridge > chip doesn't have a mapped address to place in the file. I did read the PCI > OF node spec <dated 1996> it hints that PCI-PCI bridges are essentially the > same domain and may not need translation.
The unit address of a PCI device is it's bus/idsel/function, the PCI-2-PCI bridge is no exception. Thus it doesn't need to have an assigned-address property, only "reg", which on PCI, doesn't contain -assigned- addresses, but purely a description of the BARs. In fact, you only really need the "reg" property for the config space itself which is enough to give you a valid unit-address (@xxxx) for your bridge and to make the PCI parsing code in linux happy. Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-embedded mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
