Hi Bin,
On 19 July 2015 at 20:38, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Bin,
On 18 July 2015 at 10:20, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
In driver model, each pci bridge device has its own hose structure. hose->first_busno points to the bridge device's device number, so we should not substract hose->first_busno before programming the bridge device's primary/secondary/subordinate bus number registers.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
drivers/pci/pci_auto.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
Acked-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
I'm not happy with how each PCI bridge has its own hose structure. I think that was a mistake. It just creates problems.
I'm thinking we should instead have a UCLASS_PCI which is strictly for the PCI controller, and a new UCLASS_PCI_BRIDGE for bridges.
What do you think?
I guess that may help. During the debug, I feel the dm pci codes are really not that intuitive than the previous non-dm version. It took me sometime to figure out where is the problem.
Agreed. Part of the problem I think is that it is still compatible with the old code.
We should be able to do things like pci_read_config16(struct udevice *dev, ...)
I guess we could move to separate things more.
Regards, Simon