On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 23:23 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 17:15 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> Hmmm... for now,
> >>> I think it would be best to revert the original change. Jeff, can
> >>> you
> >>> please do that?
> >>
> >> Actually, give me a few days before you do that. A colleague gave me
> >> some suggestions to debug this.
> >
> > What device did you say it was? A "ULI M1575" ?
> >
> > Is that this one?
> >
> > DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AL, 0x1575,
> > hpcd_quirk_uli1575);
> >
> > static void __devinit hpcd_quirk_uli1575(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > {
> > u32 temp32;
> >
> > if (!machine_is(mpc86xx_hpcd))
> > return;
> >
> > /* Disable INTx */
> > pci_read_config_dword(dev, 0x48, &temp32);
> > pci_write_config_dword(dev, 0x48, (temp32 | 1<<26));
> > ..
>
> It is the odd thing is the board he's running on is a mpc86xx_hpcd so
> he shouldn't be hitting the code that actually disables INTx.
Sorry Kumar that's not parsing :)
He is running an mpc86xx_hpcd, so he _should_ be hitting the code that
disables INTX?
cheers
--
Michael Ellerman
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab
wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
