On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 11:33:13AM -0700, Todd Poynor wrote:
>
> David Gibson wrote:
>
> >+ /* Now configure the PCI->PLB windows, we only use PTM1 */
> >+ out_le32((void *) &(pcip->ptm1ms), 0x00000000); /* first disable */
> >+ out_le32((void *) &(pcip->ptm1la), 0x00000000); /* base address */
> >+ out_le32((void *) &(pcip->ptm1ms), 0x80000001); /* re-enable */
> >+ out_le32((void *) &(pcip->ptm2ms), 0x00000000); /* disable PTM2 */
> >+
> >+ /* Zero config bars */
> >+ for (bar = PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_1; bar <= PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_2; bar += 4) {
> >+ early_write_config_dword(hose, hose->first_busno,
> >+ PCI_FUNC(hose->first_busno), bar,
> >+ 0x00000000);
> >+ early_read_config_dword(hose, hose->first_busno,
> >+ PCI_FUNC(hose->first_busno), bar,
> >+ &bar_response);
> >+ DBG("BUS %d, device %d, Function %d bar 0x%8.8x is
> >0x%8.8x\n",
> >+ hose->first_busno, PCI_SLOT(hose->first_busno),
> >+ PCI_FUNC(hose->first_busno), bar, bar_response);
> >+ }
>
> Only PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_1 (aka PCIL0_PTM1BAR) needs to be set since PTM2
> is disabled (Ash is already doing it this way). My reading of the
> manual would indicate that the BAR ought to be set before PTM1 is
> enabled, but haven't seen any problems with this.
I guess that's true. On the other hand, I wonder if there is merit in
setting the other BAR, just so that everything is in a known state.
> Could enclose the early_read_config_dword() in #ifdef DEBUG.
Yes, good idea.
> Rainier (NP4GS3) PMM1 is setup specially in the existing code, is this
> no longer needed?
Well, I don't know if it's necessary - it's not there, because I
didn't notice the difference in the Rainier code before. Now that I
do look at it, I'm confused: it appears to be setting up both PMM0 and
PMM1 to map from the same PLB addresses, but the manual specifically
prohibits overlapping PMM ranges.
> This code is fragile and tends to break on certain platforms in ways
> that can't be explained by the available documentation. I can help test
> the unified version on Walnut/Sycamore/Ash if needed.
Do you mean the existing code, or my proposed patch (or both). That
would be great if you could test the code on those machines - I don't
have a Sycamore or Ash, and I'd have to drag the Walnut out again to
test on it.
--
David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a
david at gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and
| wrong.
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
