On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 11:49 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Dec 20, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Peter Tyser wrote:
Thanks for the cleanup. What branch should this series be applied to? And are there prerequisites? I'm having issues applying them to test and review.
Any direction on how these should be applied for testing?
<snip>
--- a/board/xes/common/fsl_8xxx_pci.c +++ b/board/xes/common/fsl_8xxx_pci.c @@ -34,15 +34,6 @@ #ifdef CONFIG_PCI1 static struct pci_controller pci1_hose; #endif
Is there a reason PCI1 wasn't changed over too? I see pci1_hose is still referenced below, but other boards with a PCI1 don't use similar code.
I was trying to limit how much clean up I did so left this to just PCIe interfaces. Normal PCI and PCI-X is something I might get around to but one thing at a time
Ah, OK. If we're removing the LAW entries for PCI1 in law.c below, how is a LAW being set for PCI1? It looks like PCIe laws are set in fsl_configure_pcie(), and PCI LAWs are set via set_next_law() in board-specific code? I'm not seeing the call to set_next_law() in X-ES board specific code after this change though.
Best, Peter
<snip>
diff --git a/board/xes/xpedite520x/law.c b/board/xes/xpedite520x/law.c index bbfcb9d..3afb3ae 100644 --- a/board/xes/xpedite520x/law.c +++ b/board/xes/xpedite520x/law.c @@ -38,10 +38,6 @@ struct law_entry law_table[] = { /* LBC window - maps 256M 0xf0000000 -> 0xffffffff */ SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_FLASH_BASE2, LAW_SIZE_256M, LAW_TRGT_IF_LBC), SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE, LAW_SIZE_1M, LAW_TRGT_IF_LBC), -#if CONFIG_SYS_PCI1_MEM_PHYS
- SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_PCI1_MEM_PHYS, LAW_SIZE_1G, LAW_TRGT_IF_PCI_1),
- SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_PCI1_IO_PHYS, LAW_SIZE_8M, LAW_TRGT_IF_PCI_1),
-#endif #if CONFIG_SYS_PCI2_MEM_PHYS SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_PCI2_MEM_PHYS, LAW_SIZE_256M, LAW_TRGT_IF_PCI_2), SET_LAW(CONFIG_SYS_PCI2_IO_PHYS, LAW_SIZE_8M, LAW_TRGT_IF_PCI_2),