Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755263AbcDSVda (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:33:30 -0400
Received: from host.buserror.net ([209.198.135.123]:43672 "EHLO
	host.buserror.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S933259AbcDSVd2 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:33:28 -0400
Message-ID: <1461101600.32510.207.camel@buserror.net>
From: Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>
To: Alessio Igor Bogani <alessio.bogani@elettra.eu>
Cc: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:33:20 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAPk1OjHbNZfcsGfmt_tyD=3YBcJaVYLvpExtVYWaSo=5jZb+sQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <460384482-21320-1-git-send-email-alessio.bogani@elettra.eu>
	 <1460966279-29188-1-git-send-email-alessio.bogani@elettra.eu>
	 <1461039981.32510.201.camel@buserror.net>
	 <CAPk1OjHbNZfcsGfmt_tyD=3YBcJaVYLvpExtVYWaSo=5jZb+sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5-1ubuntu3.1 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 75.72.173.242
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: oss@buserror.net
X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
	*  -15 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
	*      [score: 0.0000]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] powerpc/86xx: Add support for Emerson/Artesyn
 MVME7100
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on host.buserror.net)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1139
Lines: 34

On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 10:33 +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> Thanks for reviewing it!
> 
> On 19 April 2016 at 06:26, Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 09:57 +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> > > +     pci0: pcie@f1008000 {
> > > +             reg = <0xf1008000 0x1000>;
> > > +             ranges = <0x02000000 0x0 0x80000000 0x80000000 0x0
> > > 0x50000000
> > > +                       0x01000000 0x0 0x00000000 0xf0000000 0x0
> > > 0x00800000>;
> [...]
> > > +
> > > +     pci1: pcie@f1009000 {
> > > +             compatible = "fsl,mpc8641-pcie";
> > > +             device_type = "pci";
> > > +             #size-cells = <2>;
> > > +             #address-cells = <3>;
> > > +             reg = <0xf1009000 0x1000>;
> > > +             bus-range = <0 0xff>;
> > 
> > Why are pci0 and pci1 so different? Why does mpc8641si-post.dtsi not have
> > pci1?
> 
> You are right. The MPC8641 processor offers two pci so
> mpc8641si-post.dtsi should be the right place where to define both.
> What about the boards which don't use the pci1? Will 'status =
> "disabled"' be enough?

Yes.

-Scott