From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "Microsoft Secure Server Authority" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9378B2C008E for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 03:23:58 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <50102B98.4000801@freescale.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:23:36 -0500 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jia Hongtao-B38951 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] powerpc/fsl-pci: Unify pci/pcie initialization code References: <1343125210-16720-1-git-send-email-B38951@freescale.com> <500EECA3.3050806@freescale.com> <412C8208B4A0464FA894C5F0C278CD5D01A27578@039-SN1MPN1-002.039d.mgd.msft.net> In-Reply-To: <412C8208B4A0464FA894C5F0C278CD5D01A27578@039-SN1MPN1-002.039d.mgd.msft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Li Yang-R58472 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/24/2012 09:35 PM, Jia Hongtao-B38951 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wood Scott-B07421 >> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:43 AM >> To: Jia Hongtao-B38951 >> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; galak@kernel.crashing.org; Wood Scott- >> B07421; Li Yang-R58472 >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] powerpc/fsl-pci: Unify pci/pcie initialization >> code >> >> On 07/24/2012 05:20 AM, Jia Hongtao wrote: >>> We unified the Freescale pci/pcie initialization by changing the >> fsl_pci >>> to a platform driver. >>> >>> In previous version pci/pcie initialization is in platform code which >>> Initialize pci bridge base on EP/RC or host/agent settings. >> >> The previous version of what? This patch, or the PCI code? What >> changed in this patch since the last time you sent it, and where is the >> version number? >> >>> +#if defined(CONFIG_FSL_SOC_BOOKE) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_86xx) >>> +static const struct of_device_id pci_ids[] = { >>> + { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8540-pci", }, >>> + { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8548-pcie", }, >>> + { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8641-pcie", }, >>> + { .compatible = "fsl,p1022-pcie", }, >>> + { .compatible = "fsl,p1010-pcie", }, >>> + { .compatible = "fsl,p1023-pcie", }, >>> + { .compatible = "fsl,p4080-pcie", }, >>> + { .compatible = "fsl,qoriq-pcie-v2.3", }, >>> + { .compatible = "fsl,qoriq-pcie-v2.2", }, >>> + {}, >>> +}; >> >> Again, please base this on the latest tree, which has my PCI patches. >> This table already exists in this file. And you're still missing >> fsl,mpc8610-pci. > > Sorry fsl,mpc8610-pci will be added. To what? The table is already there in Linus's tree, with fsl,mpc8610-pci. You don't need to add it again. >> It's too late for swiotlb here. Again, please don't break something in >> one patch and then fix it in a later patch. Use "git rebase -i" to edit >> your patchset into a reviewable, bisectable form. >> >> -Scott > > Yes, bisectable requirement is sort of reasonable. > > But I check the SubmittingPatches Doc and it says "If one patch depends on > another patch in order for a change to be complete, that is OK. Simply > note 'this patch depends on patch X' in your patch description". In my > opinion swiotlb is a whole functional patch so I separate them. Maybe > I should add depends description in the next patch. That's not what that means. What it means is that if someone else has already posted a patch, and your patch is supposed to go on top of that patch, you should mention that. > About all this patch set Leo and I insist to make it as a platform driver > which is architectural better. I didn't base this patch set on the latest > tree and it's unapplicable just because I want to show the whole idea of > this patchset. If the idea is ok for upstream I will rebase the patch set. If that's the case, you should label it as an [RFC PATCH] (stands for Request For Comments), and mention under the --- line any known issues, such as that it doesn't apply to the current tree. But it would be a lot easier to comment on it if it were based on the current code, rather than having to speculate what you'd do when you rebase. -Scott