On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:17:48PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:30:06 +0100, Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:18:26AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote: > >> > > The pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges function, used to parse the "ranges" > >> > > property of a PCI host device, is found in both Microblaze and PowerPC > >> > > architectures. These implementations are nearly identical. This patch > >> > > moves this common code to a common place. > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <Andrew.Murray@xxxxxxx> > >> > > Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx> > >> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > Acked-by: Michal Simek <monstr@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > --- > >> > > arch/microblaze/include/asm/pci-bridge.h | 5 +- > >> > > arch/microblaze/pci/pci-common.c | 192 ---------------------------- > >> > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h | 5 +- > >> > > arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c | 192 ---------------------------- > >> > > >> > Is there anyone on linuxppc-dev/linux-mips that can help test this patchset? > >> > > >> > I've tested that it builds on powerpc with a variety of configs (some which > >> > include fsl_pci.c implementation). Though I don't have hardware to verify that > >> > it works. > >> > > >> > I haven't tested this builds or runs on MIPS. > >> > > >> > You shouldn't see any difference in behaviour or new warnings and PCI devices > >> > should continue to operate as before. > >> > >> I've got through a line-by-line comparison between powerpc, microblaze, > >> and then new code. The differences are purely cosmetic, so I have > >> absolutely no concerns about this patch. I've applied it to my tree. > > > > oops. Due to the number of dependencies the mvebu-pcie series has (this > > being one of them, we (arm-soc/mvebu) asked if we could take this > > through our tree. Rob Herring agreed to this several days ago. Is this > > a problem for you? > > > > It would truly (dogs and cats living together) upset the apple cart for > > us at this stage to pipe these through a different tree... > > Not a problem at all. I'll drop it. Great! Thanks. Jason.
