On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 10:28 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> That's true, though I think yours is the first report we've had of
> problems.
>
> The old behaviour relied on device tree ordering in nearly all cases, so
> you basically get whatever order your firmware happened to flatten the
>
Hi Daniel,
Sorry we broke things for you.
Daniel Walker writes:
> On 06/19/2018 09:26 AM, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> What your doing is changing the phb_id to some transformation of "reg" for
>>> all platforms except which have "ibm,opal-phbid". This is what we observe.
>>> This
> [...]
> What your doing is changing the phb_id to some transformation of "reg" for
> all platforms except which have "ibm,opal-phbid". This is what we observe.
> This is a radical altering of the prior phb_id selection before your patch.
>
> The question is, was that your intent ? We are
On 06/19/2018 09:26 AM, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
[...]
What your doing is changing the phb_id to some transformation of "reg" for
all platforms except which have "ibm,opal-phbid". This is what we observe.
This is a radical altering of the prior phb_id selection before your patch.
The
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Cisco has a couple platforms which depend on the domain values getting
> set a certain way. We discovered our machines not detecting the pci
> devices, and traced it back to this commit,
>
> 63a7228 powerpc/pci: Assign fixed PHB number based
Cisco has a couple platforms which depend on the domain values getting
set a certain way. We discovered our machines not detecting the pci
devices, and traced it back to this commit,
63a7228 powerpc/pci: Assign fixed PHB number based on device-tree
properties
It seems that the code is expecting
