On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 09:09:33PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 02 January 2015 12:18:06 Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
> > On 1/2/2015 5:55 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > Hi Suravee,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:32:44PM +, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> > >> >Hi,
> > >>
On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 09:09:33PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 02 January 2015 12:18:06 Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
On 1/2/2015 5:55 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
Hi Suravee,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:32:44PM +, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
Hi,
I am not sure if
On Friday 02 January 2015 12:18:06 Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
> On 1/2/2015 5:55 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > Hi Suravee,
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:32:44PM +, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >I am not sure if this thread is still alive. I'm trying to see what I
On 1/2/2015 5:55 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
Hi Suravee,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:32:44PM +, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am not sure if this thread is still alive. I'm trying to see what I
>can do to help clean up/convert to make the PCI GHC also works for arm64
>w/ zero or
Hi Suravee,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:32:44PM +, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure if this thread is still alive. I'm trying to see what I
> can do to help clean up/convert to make the PCI GHC also works for arm64
> w/ zero or minimal ifdefs.
>
> Please let me know if
Hi Suravee,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:32:44PM +, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
Hi,
I am not sure if this thread is still alive. I'm trying to see what I
can do to help clean up/convert to make the PCI GHC also works for arm64
w/ zero or minimal ifdefs.
Please let me know if someone
On 1/2/2015 5:55 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
Hi Suravee,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:32:44PM +, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
Hi,
I am not sure if this thread is still alive. I'm trying to see what I
can do to help clean up/convert to make the PCI GHC also works for arm64
w/ zero or
On Friday 02 January 2015 12:18:06 Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
On 1/2/2015 5:55 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
Hi Suravee,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:32:44PM +, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
Hi,
I am not sure if this thread is still alive. I'm trying to see what I
can do to help
Hi,
I am not sure if this thread is still alive. I'm trying to see what I
can do to help clean up/convert to make the PCI GHC also works for arm64
w/ zero or minimal ifdefs.
Please let me know if someone is already working on this. I noticed that
Lorenzo's patches has already been in
Hi,
I am not sure if this thread is still alive. I'm trying to see what I
can do to help clean up/convert to make the PCI GHC also works for arm64
w/ zero or minimal ifdefs.
Please let me know if someone is already working on this. I noticed that
Lorenzo's patches has already been in
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 12:05:48AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 November 2014 16:39:21 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 12:05:48AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 05 November 2014 16:39:21 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM
On Wednesday 05 November 2014 16:40:58 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >
> > See below for a sample patch I just did. It duplicates the code from
> > pci_common_init_dev/pci_common_init because we know that all users
> > of pci_common_init_dev are modern and only pass a single host bridge.
> > The new
On Wednesday 05 November 2014 16:39:21 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > The
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 03:33:16PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 23 October 2014 10:13:09 Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > @@ -335,7 +329,9 @@ void __init cns3xxx_pcie_init_late(void)
> > > cns3xxx_pwr_soft_rst(0x1 << PM_SOFT_RST_REG_OFFST_PCIE(i));
> > >
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > The arm32 implementations of pci_domain_nr/pci_proc_domain can probably be
>
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
The arm32 implementations of pci_domain_nr/pci_proc_domain can probably be
removed if
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 03:33:16PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2014 10:13:09 Liviu Dudau wrote:
@@ -335,7 +329,9 @@ void __init cns3xxx_pcie_init_late(void)
cns3xxx_pwr_soft_rst(0x1 PM_SOFT_RST_REG_OFFST_PCIE(i));
On Wednesday 05 November 2014 16:39:21 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
The arm32
On Wednesday 05 November 2014 16:40:58 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
See below for a sample patch I just did. It duplicates the code from
pci_common_init_dev/pci_common_init because we know that all users
of pci_common_init_dev are modern and only pass a single host bridge.
The new
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 05:52:06PM +0100, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>
> > I think that by removing that, we could switch to CONFIG_PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC
> > on ARM32. I will remove the dependency in drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c
> >
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 05:52:06PM +0100, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
I think that by removing that, we could switch to CONFIG_PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC
on ARM32. I will remove the dependency in drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 02:33:16PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 23 October 2014 10:13:09 Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > @@ -335,7 +329,9 @@ void __init cns3xxx_pcie_init_late(void)
> > > cns3xxx_pwr_soft_rst(0x1 << PM_SOFT_RST_REG_OFFST_PCIE(i));
> > >
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 02:33:16PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2014 10:13:09 Liviu Dudau wrote:
@@ -335,7 +329,9 @@ void __init cns3xxx_pcie_init_late(void)
cns3xxx_pwr_soft_rst(0x1 PM_SOFT_RST_REG_OFFST_PCIE(i));
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> I think that by removing that, we could switch to CONFIG_PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC
> on ARM32. I will remove the dependency in drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c
> introduced by commit 2613ba48. pci_sys_data.domain is always 0 in that
>
On Thursday 23 October 2014 10:13:09 Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > @@ -335,7 +329,9 @@ void __init cns3xxx_pcie_init_late(void)
> > cns3xxx_pwr_soft_rst(0x1 << PM_SOFT_RST_REG_OFFST_PCIE(i));
> > cns3xxx_pcie_check_link(_pcie[i]);
> >
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:13:09AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:52:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > >
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:52:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > The arm32 implementations of pci_domain_nr/pci_proc_domain can probably be
>
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:52:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
The arm32 implementations of pci_domain_nr/pci_proc_domain can probably be
removed if
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:13:09AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:52:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
The arm32
On Thursday 23 October 2014 10:13:09 Liviu Dudau wrote:
@@ -335,7 +329,9 @@ void __init cns3xxx_pcie_init_late(void)
cns3xxx_pwr_soft_rst(0x1 PM_SOFT_RST_REG_OFFST_PCIE(i));
cns3xxx_pcie_check_link(cns3xxx_pcie[i]);
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
I think that by removing that, we could switch to CONFIG_PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC
on ARM32. I will remove the dependency in drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c
introduced by commit 2613ba48. pci_sys_data.domain is always 0 in that
driver
On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > The arm32 implementations of pci_domain_nr/pci_proc_domain can probably be
> > removed if we change the arm32 pcibios_init_hw function to call the new
>
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
wrote:
> ... I wonder what's the
> best course of action. Putting together all the bits and pieces required
> to remove PCI bios dependency from this patch can take a while, I wonder
> whether we should aim for merging this driver (rebased on
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
> The arm32 implementations of pci_domain_nr/pci_proc_domain can probably be
> removed if we change the arm32 pcibios_init_hw function to call the new
> interfaces that set the domain number.
I wished, but it is a bit more
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
The arm32 implementations of pci_domain_nr/pci_proc_domain can probably be
removed if we change the arm32 pcibios_init_hw function to call the new
interfaces that set the domain number.
I wished, but it is a bit more
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
lorenzo.pieral...@arm.com wrote:
... I wonder what's the
best course of action. Putting together all the bits and pieces required
to remove PCI bios dependency from this patch can take a while, I wonder
whether we should aim for merging this
On Wednesday 22 October 2014 16:59:14 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
The arm32 implementations of pci_domain_nr/pci_proc_domain can probably be
removed if we change the arm32 pcibios_init_hw function to call the new
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 07:31:26PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 10 October 2014 14:58:04 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > > Last changes where introduced by commit 8c05cd08a, whose commit log adds
> > > > to my
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 07:31:26PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 10 October 2014 14:58:04 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Last changes where introduced by commit 8c05cd08a, whose commit log adds
to my confusion:
On Friday 10 October 2014 14:58:04 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > > Last changes where introduced by commit 8c05cd08a, whose commit log adds
> > > to my confusion:
> > >
> > > "[...] I think what we want here is for pci_start to be
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
> > Last changes where introduced by commit 8c05cd08a, whose commit log adds
> > to my confusion:
> >
> > "[...] I think what we want here is for pci_start to be 0 when mmap_api ==
> > PCI_MMAP_PROCFS.[...]"
> >
> > But
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
Last changes where introduced by commit 8c05cd08a, whose commit log adds
to my confusion:
[...] I think what we want here is for pci_start to be 0 when mmap_api ==
PCI_MMAP_PROCFS.[...]
But that's not what the
On Friday 10 October 2014 14:58:04 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Last changes where introduced by commit 8c05cd08a, whose commit log adds
to my confusion:
[...] I think what we want here is for pci_start to be 0 when
On Thursday 09 October 2014 10:04:20 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:47:43PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 October 2014 11:19:43 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > Please look at the procfs interface again. That one can be defined
> > in two ways (either like
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:47:43PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 October 2014 11:19:43 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >
> > Ok. So, unless I am missing something, on platform with mem_offset != 0
> > /proc and /sys interfaces for remapping PCI resources can't work (IIUC
> > the proc
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:47:43PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 08 October 2014 11:19:43 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
Ok. So, unless I am missing something, on platform with mem_offset != 0
/proc and /sys interfaces for remapping PCI resources can't work (IIUC
the proc interface
On Thursday 09 October 2014 10:04:20 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:47:43PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 08 October 2014 11:19:43 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
Please look at the procfs interface again. That one can be defined
in two ways (either like sparc and
On Wednesday 08 October 2014 11:19:43 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>
> Ok. So, unless I am missing something, on platform with mem_offset != 0
> /proc and /sys interfaces for remapping PCI resources can't work (IIUC
> the proc interface expects the user to pass in the resource address as
> seen from
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:39:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 October 2014 15:47:50 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 07 October 2014 13:06:59 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:39:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 15:47:50 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 13:06:59 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM
On Wednesday 08 October 2014 11:19:43 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
Ok. So, unless I am missing something, on platform with mem_offset != 0
/proc and /sys interfaces for remapping PCI resources can't work (IIUC
the proc interface expects the user to pass in the resource address as
seen from
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 15:47:50 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 October 2014 13:06:59 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > >
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 October 2014 13:06:59 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > pci_mmap_page_range could either get generalized some more in an attempt
> > >
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 13:06:59 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > pci_mmap_page_range could either get generalized some more in an attempt
> > to have a __weak default implementation that works on ARM, or it could
> > be
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
> pci_mmap_page_range could either get generalized some more in an attempt
> to have a __weak default implementation that works on ARM, or it could
> be changed to lose the dependency on pci_sys_data instead. In either
> case,
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
pci_mmap_page_range could either get generalized some more in an attempt
to have a __weak default implementation that works on ARM, or it could
be changed to lose the dependency on pci_sys_data instead. In either
case, the
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 13:06:59 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
pci_mmap_page_range could either get generalized some more in an attempt
to have a __weak default implementation that works on ARM, or it could
be changed
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 13:06:59 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
pci_mmap_page_range could either get generalized some more in an attempt
to have a
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 15:47:50 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 13:06:59 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
pci_mmap_page_range
On Wednesday 01 October 2014 09:46:26 Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:01:14PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 September 2014 20:54:41 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 30 September 2014 18:48:21 Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > > > > > > These are the functions I found
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:01:14PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 September 2014 20:54:41 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 September 2014 18:48:21 Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > > > > > These are the functions I found that refer to pci_sys_data on
> > > > > > > arm32:
> > > > > > >
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:01:14PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 20:54:41 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 18:48:21 Liviu Dudau wrote:
These are the functions I found that refer to pci_sys_data on
arm32:
pcibios_add_bus
On Wednesday 01 October 2014 09:46:26 Liviu Dudau wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:01:14PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 20:54:41 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 18:48:21 Liviu Dudau wrote:
These are the functions I found that refer to
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 20:54:41 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 September 2014 18:48:21 Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > > > > These are the functions I found that refer to pci_sys_data on arm32:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pcibios_add_bus
> > > > > > pcibios_remove_bus
> >
> > These are only
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 18:48:21 Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > > > These are the functions I found that refer to pci_sys_data on arm32:
> > > > >
> > > > > pcibios_add_bus
> > > > > pcibios_remove_bus
>
> These are only needed if you want to do per HB processing of the bus
>
> > > > >
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 06:35:40PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:42:56PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:12:41PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:31:44PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 30
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:42:56PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:12:41PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:31:44PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 30 September 2014 13:03:44 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > > > static int
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:12:41PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:31:44PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 September 2014 13:03:44 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > > static int gen_pci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > {
> > > > > @@ -326,6
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:31:44PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 September 2014 13:03:44 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > static int gen_pci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -326,6 +385,7 @@ static int gen_pci_probe(struct platform_device
> > > > *pdev)
> >
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 13:03:44 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > static int gen_pci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > {
> > > @@ -326,6 +385,7 @@ static int gen_pci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > struct device *dev = >dev;
> > > struct device_node *np =
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 03:36:30PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 28 September 2014 15:53:28 suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com wrote:
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
> > +struct pci_bus *gen_scan_root_bus(struct device *parent, int bus,
> > + struct pci_ops
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 03:36:30PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Sunday 28 September 2014 15:53:28 suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com wrote:
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
+struct pci_bus *gen_scan_root_bus(struct device *parent, int bus,
+ struct pci_ops *ops,
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 13:03:44 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
static int gen_pci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
@@ -326,6 +385,7 @@ static int gen_pci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
struct device *dev = pdev-dev;
struct device_node *np = dev-of_node;
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:31:44PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 13:03:44 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
static int gen_pci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
@@ -326,6 +385,7 @@ static int gen_pci_probe(struct platform_device
*pdev)
struct
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:12:41PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:31:44PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 13:03:44 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
static int gen_pci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
@@ -326,6 +385,7 @@ static
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:42:56PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:12:41PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:31:44PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 13:03:44 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
static int gen_pci_probe(struct
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 06:35:40PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:42:56PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:12:41PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:31:44PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 30 September 2014
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 18:48:21 Liviu Dudau wrote:
These are the functions I found that refer to pci_sys_data on arm32:
pcibios_add_bus
pcibios_remove_bus
These are only needed if you want to do per HB processing of the bus
pcibios_align_resource
mvebu is
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 20:54:41 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 30 September 2014 18:48:21 Liviu Dudau wrote:
These are the functions I found that refer to pci_sys_data on arm32:
pcibios_add_bus
pcibios_remove_bus
These are only needed if you want to do per HB
How does the res->parent for devices of non-"PCI_PROBE_ONLY" controller
gets set with this patch ?
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:23 AM, wrote:
> From: Suravee Suthikulpanit
>
> This patch adds ARM64 support to the generic PCI host driver.
>
> For MSI support, it adds new device tree binding
On Sunday 28 September 2014 15:53:28 suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com wrote:
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
> +struct pci_bus *gen_scan_root_bus(struct device *parent, int bus,
> + struct pci_ops *ops, void *sysdata,
> + struct
On Sunday 28 September 2014 15:53:28 suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com wrote:
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
+struct pci_bus *gen_scan_root_bus(struct device *parent, int bus,
+ struct pci_ops *ops, void *sysdata,
+ struct
How does the res-parent for devices of non-PCI_PROBE_ONLY controller
gets set with this patch ?
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:23 AM, suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com wrote:
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com
This patch adds ARM64 support to the generic PCI host driver.
For
84 matches
Mail list logo
