On Feb 2, 2007, at 07:36, 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. > > Another concern I have now is that the interrupt mask may be > incorrect. > i.e. currently it is <f800 0 0 7>, should I change this to <3f800 0 > 0 7> > since I am using an extra 2 bits to indicate bus? This would make > sense if > the ((Bus << 16) | Dev << 11))
Yeah, you need to do that. Take a look at mpc8548cds.dts. We have a mapping for the VIA chip hanging off a P2P bridge on PCI1. But I think you've pretty much got it figured out. Just sending you a "working" example (we've got it working internally, now, we just need to find the right code path. But the dts is correct). Andy _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-embedded mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
